Tripura High Court
Mr. T D. Majumder vs Mr. D. Sarma on 4 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 458 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T D. Majumder, Sr. Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
04.07.2022
This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India
whereby the petitioner urged this court to issue writ in the nature of
mandamus or like nature directing the respondents and each one of them
to complete the process of verification of testimonial of the petitioner,
pursuant to the recommendation of the Public service Commission in favour
of the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Boilers, Group-A, Gazetted, in
the Factories and Boilers Organisation under the Labour Department
preceded by vide Advertisement No01 of 2017 issued by TPSC for the post
in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- (Pay Band-4, Grade Pay-
Rs.6800/- (revised pay).
[2] It is case of the petitioner that he appeared for selection for the
post of Inspector of Boilers, Group-A, Gazetted in the Factories & Boilers
Organization under the Labour Department, in response to Advertisement
No.01 of 2017, issued by Tripura Public Service Commission. Since result of
the interview was not published for a considerable period, the petitioner
filed writ petition WP(C) 186 of 2019 asking the TPSC to publish result of
the interview irrespective of the Government's illegal instruction to the
TPSC. Accordingly, this high court allowed the writ petition vide order dated
05.08.2019.
[3] The state government filed writ appeal against the judgment
and order being W.A 196 of 2019 which was also dismissed on 25.08.2020
by a reasoned judgment. The petitioner then again approached the
respondents to verify his testimonials and issue him offer of appointment
on 26.08.2020 and subsequently on advice of the Chief Inspector of the
Factories another representation to Secretary, Labour Department on
22.11.2020.
[4] TPSC had issued Notification on 12.12.2019 conveying selection
and recommendation of petitioner to the government for appointment for
the post of Inspector of Boilers.
[5] State of Tripura had filed an I.A 02 of 2020 seeking time as
they filed SLP before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 24.11.2020 in IA. 02.02.2020 has rejected the prayer.
[6] It is also submitted by the petitioner that he did not receive any
notice of SLP till date. There is no likelihood of the alleged SLP to be
disposed of in near future. Petitioner submits that he may be appointed to
the post of Inspector of Boilers without prejudice to the alleged SLP, if any
pending. Otherwise the most valuable rights of petitioner to get
appointment will be lost and jeopardized. State cannot deny appointment
to the selected and recommended candidate by taking any policy decision
to annul the selection whimsically by way retrospective effect of the policy.
Court did not find favour with such act of the Government.
[7] Recently, State Government published its policy of promotion
2021 while SLP is pending to promote eligible persons on adhoc basis till
decision in the apex court subject to outcome of the SLP pending. The
petitioner has urged this court that he may also be considered for
appointment in the light of the aforesaid policy of appointment on
promotion otherwise the petitioner would suffer a lot for no fault of him on
the plea of pendency of SLP.
[8] It is represented by the counsel for the respondents that
against the relief sought by the petitioner, the petitioner also filed a writ
petition before this court and the same was allowed. Thereafter,
challenging the same the state respondents preferred an appeal which was
subsequently dismissed. Further, the state preferred an SLP(C) 014826 of
2020 before the apex court and the apex court has granted order of status
quo by the order dated 05.07.2021. In view of the same, since the subject
matter is sub-judice before the apex court, it is not just for the petitioner to
file another writ petition.
[9] In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed on the
sole ground as indicated above. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take
appropriate legal steps once the matter before the apex court is
adjudicated.
JUDGE
Dipak
