Tripura High Court
Sri. Tathagata Chanda vs Tripura Gramin Bank on 11 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No. 209 of 2020
Sri. Tathagata Chanda,
son of Sri Sajal Chanda,
resident of Joy Nagar Lane No-4,
PO: Joynagar, Pin: 799001,
Agartala, District: West Tripura
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Tripura Gramin Bank,
represented by its Chairman,
PO: Abhaynagar, Pin: 799005,
Agartala, District: West Tripura
2. The Chairman,
Tripura Gramin Bank,
PO: Abhaynagar, Pin: 799005,
Agartala, District: West Tripura
3. The Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS),
represented by its Chairman, IBPS House,
near Thakur Polytechnic, Western Express Highway,
PB No. 8587, Kandivali, East Mumbai: 400101
Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. CS Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Barman, Advocate
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE THE JUSTICE MR. S. TALAPATRA
HON'BLE THE JUSTICE MR. S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Judgment & Order (Oral)
11/02/2021
Heard Mr. CS Sinha, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant as well as Mr. AR Barman, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 30.09.2020 delivered in WP(C) No. 607/2020
filed by the appellant herein.
3. The grievance as propagated in the said writ
petition is that on the culmination of the recruitment process
that was initiated by the advertisement dated 06.06.2012,
the petitioner did not get any offer from the bank
respondents. But the ground of objection as raised in the writ
petition succinctly is that the bank-respondents refused to
operate the waitlist which according to the said advertisement
was to be maintained.
4. In the advertisement, it has been emphasized that
the list will be formed with the number of candidates equaling
to twenty five percent of total vacancy notified and that list
would be operated for appointment as per availability of
vacancies. The said reserve/wait list would last for a period of
one year.
5. According to the appellant, the bank respondents
did not fill up the vacancy when one of the UR candidates
having been selected did not accept the offer of appointment.
It has been also contended by the appellant in his writ
petition that the person at the serial No.1 in the reserve list,
namely Rupam Datta also did not accept his offer of
appointment.
6. The petitioner filed a writ petition earlier before
this court being WP(C) No. 1422/2019 which was disposed by
a common judgment dated 06.03.2020 where this court had
occasion to observe as follows:
"9. In WP (C) No.1422/2019 the respondents
are directed to operate the reserved list for UR
category for one vacancy to be offered to the first
person in the reserved list, be it the petitioner or
anyone else."
7. It was further directed that the exercise shall be
completed within a period of two months from the date of the
judgment.
8. Since the respondent did not take any action as
expected by the petitioner, the petitioner brought a contempt
action being Cont Cas (C) No.24/2020 before the learned
Single Judge and the said contempt proceeding was disposed
by the order dated 15.07.2020 observing as follows:
"In connection with Contempt Petition
No.24/2020 in case of Sri. Tathagata Chanda,
counsel for the respondents stated that while
operating the merit list as directed by the Court, it
was found that one Rupam Datta was next in line
as per merit. He has conveyed his unwillingness
to accept appointment."
9. It appears from the records, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition being WP (C) No. 607/2020
based on the said disclosure made by the respondents in the
contempt action.
10. According to him, now he would be entitled to get
the offer of appointment in terms of his position in the said
reserve list. In response, the respondents by filing a reply
have disclosed that by the communication dated 20.08.2020
the petitioner was conveyed that the name of the petitioner
did not appear immediately after the name of Sri Rupam
Datta. Therefore, his name could not be considered for
issuing an offer of appointment. In the perspective facts,
learned single Judge has observed that since the name of the
petitioner does not occur immediately below the name of Sri.
Rupam Datta, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim
appointment, rather, such claim would negate the right of the
person next to Sri Rupam Datta. Thus, the writ petition has
been dismissed by the impugned order by observing that the
petitioner has no legitimate claim for appointment on
operating the reserve list for indefinite period. The bank had
rightly offered the vacancy to the first person in the reserve
list. When he had refused and it was found that the petitioner
was not immediately below the said person, there cannot be
any direction for appointing the petitioner.
11. Initially, we had impression whether the appellant
[the writ petitioner] had not been considered duly in
accordance with the advertised rule. But after going through
the records we do locate that the petitioner's endeavour to
build up a case that he had chance to get the appointment, is
totally unfounded.
12. For the purpose of scrutiny, we had directed the
counsel for the bank-respondents to produce before us the
records relating to the waitlist.
14. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the
bank respondents has produced that reserve list, the relevant
part of which reads as follows:
SR. STATE ROLL NO. REG NO NAME DOB CATE- TOTAL
No. GORY
1. TRIPURA 2901000885 1660001406 RUPAM DATTA 28.06.92 GEN 51.60
2. TRIPURA 2901000199 1660611347 ROHIT BANERJEE 21.05.91 GEN 50.62
3. TRIPURA 2901000365 1660607828 TATHAGATA CHANDA 24.10.91 GEN 50.00
15. Sri Rohit Banerjee [not a party in the proceeding]
was the person next below Sri Rupam Datta. Unless, he had
refused to accept the offer of appointment within the lifetime
of the said reserve list, the petitioner did not and does not
have any right to claim appointment for his position in the
reserve list.
16. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the finding
of the learned Civil Judge.
Having observed thus, this appeal stands
dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
satabdi
