Tripura High Court
Smt. Subarna Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura on 2 August, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.988/2022
Smt. Subarna Chakraborty, W/O- Sri Sudip Goswami, Resident of Rabindra
Nagar, AMC Ward No.51, P.O.:- Renters Colony, P.S.:- East Agartala,
District:-West Tripura, Pin:-799004, Aged about:-33 years.
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Special Secretary, Department of
Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura, P.O.:- Agartala Secretariat,
P.S.:-New Capital Complex, District:-West Tripura, PIN-799010.
2. The Director, Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of
Tripura, P.O.:- Agartala Secretariat, P.S.:-New Capital Complex, District:-West
Tripura, PIN-799010.
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,
Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul, Advocate,
Mr. Swarupan Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A.,
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of hearing and judgment: 2nd August, 2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
This is the fourth round of litigation by the petitioner in
connection with her appointment to the post of Senior Instructor
(Employability Skill) under the Department of Industries and Commerce,
Government of Tripura, under advertisement dated 30.04.2016.
2. In the first writ petition being WP(C) No.375 of 2016, the date for
filing application under the advertisement dated 30.04.2016 was extended.
Petitioner applied within the extended time. The second writ petition bearing
No. WP(C) 864 of 2017 was preferred by the petitioner as the petitioner was
awarded "0" marks under the head of "need" criteria which the petitioner
challenged. The writ petition was decided by the learned Writ Court vide
judgment dated 05.08.2020, inter alia, holding as under:
"17. 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 drawn 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."
(emphasis supplied)
3. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court in WP(C)
No.34 of 2021 as despite preparation of a fresh result sheet pursuant to the
judgment dated 05.08.2020, they had not offered appointment to the petitioner
within a period of 4(four) months. The said writ petition was disposed of with
the following directions:
"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.
In the result, the instant writ petitions stand disposed of in the
above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
A copy of the order be forwarded to learned Additional GA."
4. Thereafter, the petitioner has been appointed vide memorandum
dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) on the post of Senior
Instructor ( Employability Skill), Group-C (Non-Gazetted). The present writ
petition has been preferred with a prayer to direct the respondents to give
retrospective effect to her date of appointment vide memorandum dated
30.04.2022 from the date on which the other similarly situated candidates were
appointed for the purposes of counting of the said period towards pension,
gratuity and other service benefits including notional fixation.
5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have contested the
prayer and, in particular, at paragraph-6 of their counter affidavit also relied
upon the observations of the Writ Court in the judgment dated 05.08.2020,
paragraph-17 of which has also been quoted hereinabove.
6. Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn
the attention of this Court to the rejoinder affidavit, in particular paragraphs-
11and 12 and submitted that since the judgment dated 05.08.2020 was not
implemented, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief of restoration of his
original position at par with other similarly situated candidates who were
appointed under the advertisement dated 30.04.2016 for the purposes of
qualifying service for pension, gratuity, seniority etc.
7. Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate assisted
by Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State,
has, however, strongly objected to the prayer for giving retrospectivity to the
order of appointment dated 30.04.2022 in view of the categorical observations
of the Writ Court at paragraph-17 of the judgment dated 05.08.2020.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the chequered history of the litigation relating to the
claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Senior Instructor
(Employability Skill) under the Department of Industries and Commerce,
Government of Tripura. It is true that the petitioner had to fight several round
of litigations to finally secure an employment which was granted to her only in
the year 2022 vide memorandum dated 30.04.2022. Had the delay on account
of litigation been the only basis for making a plea for getting retrospective
effect to her order of appointment, one could have understood. However, since
the Writ Court on the second occasion in its detailed judgment dated
05.08.2020 being conscious of the complications which may arise in giving
effect to the judgment while preparing a fresh result sheet by eliminating the
marks under the head of "need" criteria has categorically observed as under:
"Any such appointment would be prospective and would carry
no weightage for the past period for any purpose."
9. Such observation being delivered in the case of the petitioner
herself, it would not be proper to give effect to the order of appointment of the
petitioner dated 30.04.2022, a retrospective effect from the date on which other
persons have been appointed under the same advertisement dated 30.04.2016.
This would amount to overreaching the judgment of the Writ Court rendered in
the case of the same parties in respect of the same advertisement and his prayer
for appointment on the same post. As such, the relief prayed for cannot be
granted.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
PULAK BANIK Date: 2023.08.04
16:03:17 +05'30'
