Tripura High Court
Mr. P Roy Barman vs Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya on 13 July, 2021
Page - 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.189/2021
WA No.191/2021
WA No.192/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya, Govt. Adv.,
Mr. S Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
13/7/2021
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned
Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants-original private
respondents submitted that :
(i) The petitions were filed after long delay and suffered from
laches. Draft and final seniority lists were published
successively from the year 2003 onwards which seniority lists
were never challenged by the original petitioners till filing of
the petitions in the year 2017. In the meantime, the appellants-
original private respondents were promoted in the year 2010 to
the exclusion of the petitioners. At that stage also, the
petitioners had not made any grievance.
Page - 2 of 3
(ii) The learned Single Judge has committed an error in
interpreting Rule 9(2)(b) of Tripura State Rifles (Discipline,
Control, Service Conditions etc.) Rules,1986. The petitioners
and private respondents belong to the same batch of selection to
the post of Havildar(G.D). As per Rule 9(2)(b), inter se
seniority of all the selectees had to be decided on the basis of
aggregate of the scores in the test held on completion of the
basic training. Since the private respondents had scored more
marks than the original petitioners, they were correctly given
seniority over the petitioners. Learned Single Judge wrongly
came to the conclusion that two separate batches have been
merged for the purpose of determining inter se seniority.
(iii) The learned Judge had come to the conclusion that the
challenge of the petitioners to the promotion of the private
respondents was highly belated. The challenge to the
promotions was turned down. On the other hand, the learned
Judge directed recasting of the seniority inter se and for
consideration of the promotions of the petitioners on the basis
of fresh seniority and further provided that if the petitioners
promoted on the basis of such exercise, they will rank senior to
the private respondents, thereby effectively pushing back the
Page - 3 of 3
private-respondents even in the promotional cadre ignoring the
fact that they were promoted in the year 2010 and the
petitioners are still not promoted.
Notice for final disposal, returnable on 10th August 2021.
The contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants require
serious consideration. By way of ad-interim relief, impugned judgment of
the learned Single Judge is stayed.
Learned counsel, Mr. S Saha, waived notice for the State-
respondents No.2 to 5. Direct service for respondent No.1 is permitted.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukhendu
