Tripura High Court
Mr. Arijit Bhowmik vs Mr. K. Dey on 10 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 34/2021
Alongwith WP(C) 35/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Dey, Addl. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
10/09/2021
Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. K. Dey, learned Additional GA appearing for the respondents.
Both the writ petitions have been taken up and heard together since
common questions of law are involved.
This is the second round of litigation filed by the petitioners. In the
first round of litigation, by way of filing the writ petitions, the petitioners
have challenged the selection process for the post of Senior Instructor
(Employability Skills) undertaken by the official respondents pursuant to
advertisement dated 13.04.2016.
The petitioners had challenged the marks allocated on 'need' criteria
as found in the advertisement for filling up the said posts. This court held
that no marks could be allotted on 'need' criteria and the marks awarded
to some of the candidates on that category had to be eliminated. It is
pertinent to mention that the government had allocated 25 marks on the
head of 'need' criteria. In pursuance of the order of the court, the
respondents had prepared a fresh select list in 'unreserved' category of
candidates eliminating 25 marks allocated to some candidates. The said
select list has been reproduced in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit
filed by the respondents. The relevant portion may be reproduced here-
under:
" In pursuance of the Judgment & Order dated 05/08/2020, passed by the Hon'ble High
Court, a fresh result sheet was prepared after eliminating the marks awarded to the
respective candidates belong to unreserved category under remaining heading those who had
appeared in the interview for the post of Senior Instructor (Employability Skill). Details of
fresh result sheet is given hereunder.
Sl. Name of Candidate Category Total Marks obtained
No. under the remaining heads
1. Smt. Munmun Deb, D/O Subhash Ch. Deb UR 58 (selected candidate)
2. Sri Raju Saha, S/O Ratan Saha UR 46 (Petitioner)
3. Smt. Subarna Chakraborty, W/O Sudip UR 45 (Petitioner)
Goswami
4. Sri Bedaprakash Banerjee, S/O Sankar Kr. UR 36 (Last selected
Banerjee candidate)
Allowing the claim of the petitioners and eliminating 'need' criteria,
this court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition [WP(C) 106 of
2017 and WP(C) 864 of 2017] had passed the following direction:
"17. In view of such conclusions and in obtaining facts the relief in the favour of the petitioners
must be moulded. It is not necessary to unsettle the selection of the private respondents at this
distant point of time. Nor petitioners can hope to secure employment only on the basis of this
declaration. For the purpose of these petitions, therefore, the respondents would be asked to
eliminate the marks under the head of "need" criteria in case of the petitioners and for
comparison, in case of all selected candidates who belong to unreserved category. After
eliminating such marks, the official respondents shall prepare a result sheet in the order of
merits drawn on the basis of marks awarded to the respective candidates under the remaining
headings. If on such basis the petitioners or either of them is/are found to be more meritorious
than the last selected candidate, he would be offered appointment on the existing vacancy for
an unreserved candidate on the post in question or against the first available vacancy which
may arise in future. Any such appointment would be prospective and would carry no weightage
for the past period for any purpose. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of 4(four)
months from today".
As I have said earlier, that the respondent in pursuance of the said
judgment and order dated 05.08.2020had prepared a fresh result-sheet on
the basis of merits, but, they have not implemented the order so far the
direction of the court that the entire exercise for appointment of the
petitioners would be made within 4 months.
While responding to the averments made in the present writ petition,
the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that there was/is no
vacancy to appoint the petitioners. As such, the petitioners have not been
appointed till today.
The petitioners through RTI came to know that there are ITIs in
Ambassa, Khowai and Gandacherra. Further 18 numbers of ITIs have
been constructed, and ITI, Santirbazaar is under construction. In
furtherance thereof, 32 posts of Senior Instructor in different trades had
been created in the year 2018, but, those were lapsed in the meantime.
Be that as it may, since there are vacant posts available, the
respondents are directed to initiate necessary steps to appoint the
petitioners in the post of Senior Instructor under any of the ITIs. The
entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the
date when the respondents shall receive a copy of this order since
direction to complete the exercise within a period of 4 (four) months in
terms of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2020 in WP(C) 106 of 2017
and WP(C) 864 of 2017 have already been elapsed over .
In the result, the instant writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
A copy of the order be forwarded to learned Additional GA.
JUDGE
Saikat
