The State Of Tripura And Others vs Rakesh Kuri And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 905 Tri

                                        Page 1 of 6




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                            WA No.252 of 2021
The State of Tripura and others
                                                        ......... Appellant(s)

                                         Versus

Rakesh Kuri and others
                                                        ........ Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)          :    Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.,
                               Mr. S. Saha, Advocate,
For Respondent(s)             : None.

        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                 _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
14/09/2021
(Akil kureshi, CJ)

This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.02.2021 passed in WP(C)

No.682 of 2019. Writ petition was filed by the present respondents. They

had challenged the action of the State Government in cancelling the

selection process for the post of Havildar (Engine Fitter) in which they

were selected. Their eventual prayer therefore was for being appointed on

the said post pursuant to such selection process. Before the learned Single

Judge the stand of the government was that before making appointments,

the government had framed the new recruitment policy and desired that

all selections be made according to such policy. The learned Single Judge

allowed the writ petition observing inter alia that no acceptable reason has

been assigned for cancelling the recruitment process or the

recommendations made by the recruitment board for appointment to the

post. The respondents, were therefore, directed to reconsider the

recommendation of recruitment board dated 06.05.2017 for the purpose

of appointments. This judgment of the learned Single Judge the State

Government has challenged in this appeal.

The record would show that the government had initiated

recruitment process for appointment on 58 vacant posts of Havildar

(Engine Fitter) by issuing advertisement dated 07.03.2017. The selection

process would comprise of physical endurance test carrying 60 marks.

Those who qualify such physical test would be allowed to sit in the

written examination. Those who pass both these tests would be called for

oral interview which would carry 10 marks out of a total of 100. On the

basis of combined performance of the candidates select list would be

prepared. It is undisputed that all these stages were completed before

May, 2017. As a culmination of this exercise the selection board

constituted for this purpose had recommended only 20 candidates for

appointment. In other words, in the view of the board sufficient suitable

candidates were not available. The board made its recommendations to

the government on 06.05.2017. This was communicated by the Chairman

of the recruitment board to the government under a letter dated

15.05.2017. A corresponding request was also made by the Director

General of Police to the Home Department for permission to appoint

selected candidates on the said post of Havildar (Engine Fitter). The

Home Department had certain queries and did not grant permission as

requested. Eventually, on 04.09.2019 communication was made to the

Director General of Police informing him that the recommendation of the

recruitment board would be treated as cancelled in view of the

memorandum dated 20th August, 2018 issued by the Department of

Personnel and Training.

The case of the State Government emerging from the

affidavit-in-reply filed in the writ petition is that on 14.03.2018 the

government decided to keep all selection processes in abeyance pending

formulation of new recruitment policy. Such recruitment policy was

framed on 20th April, 2018 and government decided on 20th August, 2018

to cancel all pending selections which would now be undertaken as per

the new recruitment policy. It is also pointed out that the High Court of

Tripura had found the recruitment policy applicable to the State teachers

defective upon which a new recruitment policy was framed on 23 rd July,

2016 which was also not in consonance with the judgment of the High

Court. It is highlighted that in the new recruitment policy framed by the

government in the year 2018 a major departure from the past practice has

been made when appointments of Group B, C and D posts were made

exclusively through oral interviews. For vacancies to be filled through

recommendation from TPSC also more than 10% share was allotted to

oral interviews. In short, to cure these defects new recruitment policy is

relied upon.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the judgment

of this Court in case of Samudra Debbarma versus State of Tripura and

others in WP(C) 831 of 2018 in which similar issues had arisen has been

challenged before the Supreme Court and appeal is pending. He

submitted that in case of Partha Das versus State of Tripura and others

in WP(C) No.946 of 2018 this Court has taken a different view

recognizing the right of the government to cancel the selection process

before its completion.

We would focus on facts of this case. As noted, in the

present case long before the State Government decided to suspend all

pending selection processes awaiting formulation of new recruitment

policy, entire exercise of selection was completed. The selection process

consisted of physical endurance test followed by written test to be

followed by oral interview comprising of 10% of the total marks. The

recruitment board could find only 20 suitable candidates against total 58

vacancies. Recommendations were also made to the State Government in

May, 2017. It was only sometime in March, 2018, the State Government

took a policy decision to keep in abeyance all pending selection processes

awaiting formulation of new recruitment policy. To apply such policy

decision to a selection process which had been all but completed, would

not be permissible. Only thing remained pending was to issue offers of

appointment on the basis of such selection. If the Home Department had

any other objection to the selection process or to the selected candidate, it

was always open for the department to so state on record. However, a

general objection that the selection process may have been properly

conducted and completed but appointments are not yet made till the

government decided to suspend the selection processes would not be

sustainable.

There is yet another peculiar aspect of the matter. The

government would like to highlight that to eliminate personal bias the

new recruitment policy envisages limiting the oral interview marks to not

more than 10% of the total. In the present case, as noted, from the

inception the oral interview carried weightage of only 10%. Allowing the

government now to carry out fresh selections on the basis of the new

recruitment policy would only be for cosmetic purpose. In other words,

unless and until in material terms the new recruitment policy departs from

the past policy applied in this case, the administration cannot be allowed

a second innings when the entire selection process was completed long

before the new recruitment policy came into existence. Even the new

recruitment policy provides that the same would apply prospectively.

             In   the   result,   writ   appeal    is    dismissed.   Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.




(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                                 (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Dipesh