Tripura High Court
Present vs . on 4 April, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
REVIEW PETITION NO.9 OF 2023
The State of Tripura
Vs.
Sri Dipankar Saha Roy
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. K. De, Addl.G.A.
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : None.
04.04.2023
Order
This present petition has been filed under Chapter V-A
of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing the Judgment and
Order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C)
No.736 of 2022.
The brief fact of this present petition is that the
respondent in the instant case had filed a writ petition vide
No.WP(C) No.736 of 2022 for quashing and canceling the
Notification dated 15.07.2022, issued by the TRBT so far it
relates to the notified vacancies and also sought direction to
issue fresh notification for filling up of 230 post of graduate
teachers (Class IX-X) (STGT). By a Judgment dated
19.12.2022, this Court interfered with to the extent that the
number of vacancies carried forward shall not be given effect
to, since it will affect the process of recruitment of different
Departments, under the Government of Tripura, especially the
provision relating to filling up of accumulated unfilled reserved
vacancies. The review petition herein has filed this petition
praying for the following reliefs:-
" i) For that, since the Constitutional amendment has
given wide power and specific steps to carry forward the earmak
vacancy which supersede the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Act, 1991
and thereby the findings of this Hon'ble Court is required to be reviewed
by calling the directions.
ii) For that, the State Government has been
adequately empowered to fill up the unfilled vacancies accumulated over
previous succeeding years through the recruitment process as per the
advertisement dated 15.07.202 in as much as in terms of Article 16(4B)
of the Constitution of India.
iii) For that, the Tripura Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 have procedure for de-reserving
the seats in contrast to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Constitutional provisions and thus the impugned direction is required
to be reviewed.
iv) For that, without cancelling the advertisement no
rearrangement of seats already advertised can be followed as the same
will invite the infringement of the right of the candidates as well as
opening a numerous litigations and therefore the impugned Judgment
and Order is required to be reviewed."
Today the matter came up in the motion stage and heard
Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. K. De, learned
Addl. G.A. as well as Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
In terms of the facts and circumstance of this present
review petition, this Court is of the view that, if suppose there is
any wrong interpretation made by this Court in the Judgment and
Order passed in the said writ petition, filing a review petition is not
the proper recourse, the review petitioner has to prefer an appeal.
Accordingly, this present review petition is dismissed and the
impugned Judgment and Order is confirmed.
As a sequel, pending application(s), if any also stand
closed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
suhanjit
