Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Others vs Suparna Paul And Others on 23 May, 2022
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.302/2021
The State of Tripura and others
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Suparna Paul and others
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
23/05/2022
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, learned Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellants and Mr. P. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present writ appeal has come to be filed seeking to
challenge a judgment and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.198 of 2020.
3. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment had passed
the directions contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 which may be reproduced
hereinbelow:
"4. In my opinion, the court cannot direct the State
authority to fill up the left out vacancies. It is absolutely
within the domain of the State authorities whether they want
to fill up the vacancies or not. A candidate who has been
selected but, not recommended for appointment has no
accrued right to claim appointment out of that selected list.
The petitioners have no grievance against the selection of the
candidates who were appointed by this time under the State-
respondents. The petitioners also expect that if the remaining
vacant posts are filled up, their names may be considered for
recommendation.
5. As I have said earlier, this court exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot direct the State-authorities to fill up the vacancies. I
reiterate that it is within the ambit of the State-authorities
itself.
6. In view of that, I find no merit in these writ
petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stands dismissed.
However, I direct that if in future the vacancies are filled up,
the State-authorities may consider the names of the petitioners
subject to their eligibility and other criteria in accordance with
law."
4. In other words, even though the writ petition of the private writ
petitioners (respondents herein) came to be dismissed, the State have still
preferred an appeal purportedly since the learned Single Judge made a
further direction after dismissing the writ petition to the effect that if in the
future the vacancies are filled up by the State-authorities, they may consider
the names of the petitioners subject to their eligibility and other criteria in
accordance with law.
5. The aforesaid observation has sought to be challenged in the
present appeal. We find no reason for justifying the appeal inasmuch as the
original writ petitioners in any event could apply for any future vacancy and
only if they meet the requirements of law and standard set in that
examination, would they be considered eligible for appointment.
6. Therefore, we find no ambiguity or justification in filing of the
present appeal. Hence, the same stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
