Tripura High Court
Mr. P. Roy Barman vs Mr. D. Sarma on 28 July, 2022
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 587 of 2022
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Ms S. Paul, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
28/07/2022
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing
for the State-respondents.
The petitioner herein has challenged the notice of
termination dated 01.07.2022 issued by the Director, Industries and
Commerce, Government of Tripura.
Factual background of the case, is that, the petitioner was
appointed as Senior Instructor (Employability Skill) by
memorandum dated 14.12.2016. The said appointment of the
petitioner was challenged by two candidates who also appeared in
the selection process namely, Smt. Subarna Chakraborty and Sri
Raju Saha by filing two writ petitions which were numbered as
WP(C) No. 106 of 2017 and WP(C) No. 864 of 2017. Those writ
petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated
05.08.2020 with the following directions:
"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 dran
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."
This order was further confirmed by an order dated
10.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 34 of 2021 along with WP(C) No.
35 of 2021, wherein it was held that:
"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."
From the above quoted directions, it is aptly clear that the
court has specifically directed not to disturb the service of the
present petitioner, namely Sri Bedprakash Banerjee.
It was further directed by the court that the two writ
petitioners namely, Smt. Subarna Chakraborty and Sri Raju Saha
might be appointed against any existing vacancy or against future
vacancies.
In the light of the above, the respondents had blatantly
committed an error of law in issuing the impugned termination
notice (Annexure 7 to the writ petition).
Accordingly, the notice dated 01.07.2022 cannot have any
force in the eye of law being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the
specific directions of this Court, as stated here-in-above.
In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. Notice dated
01.07.2022 stands quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed.
JUDGE
Snigdha
