Sri Aniruddha Das vs The State Of Tripura
2023 Latest Caselaw 632 Tri

                                        Page 1 of 3




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                              WP(C) No.13 of 2022
Sri Aniruddha Das,
S/o Late Balaram Das, Vill: East Champamura,
P.O.- Old Agartala, P.S.-Bodhjungnagar, Aged about 42 years,
West Tripura-District, Pin-799008.
                                                           ....Petitioner(s)
                          Versus
1.    The State of Tripura,
      Represented by the Secretary,
      Forest Department, Government of Tripura, Secretariat
      Building, P.O. Secretariat, P.S.-N.C.C. Agartala, District-West
      Tripura, PIN-799010
2.    The Principal Chief Conservation Forests,
      Government of Tripura, Aranya Bhaban, Pt. Nehru Complex,
      P.O. Secretariat, P.S.-NCC, Gomati District, Tripura State,
      Pin-799010
3.    Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited,
      Represented by its Managing Director, a Government of Tripura
      Undertaing, Abhoynagar, P.O.-Abhoynagar, Agartala,
      Tripura, Pin-799005.
4.    The Managing Director,
      Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited,
      Abhoynagar, P.O.-Abhoynagar, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799005.
5.    The General Manager,
      Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited,
      Anandanagar, P.O.-Nagicheera, Agartala,
      Tripura West.
                                                           ....Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, GA Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery of judgment & order : 14.08.2023 Whether fit for reporting : No

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA assisted by Mr. Rajib

Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been serving under the

respondents-T.F.D.P.C since 2008. There were some vacant posts and the

petitioner submitted representations to regularize his service against those

vacant posts. The respondents had issued an advertisement for filling up of

various types of posts under T.F.D.P.C. It is the contention of the petitioner

that in pursuance of the said advertisement he had applied for the said posts,

but, he was not called for participating in the selection process. The petitioner

submitted representations to the respondents to consider his regularization and

the petitioner lastly submitted representation on 10.09.2021(Annexure-23 to

the writ petition).

3. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in

spite of those representations the respondents have not regularized the service

of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA has submitted

that the petitioner had never applied for any posts in pursuance of the

advertisement dated 15.12.2015, which is evident from the records itself

relating to the selection process. However, the petitioner was engaged as

permanent factory worker on 18.06.2016.

5. At this juncture, this Court has made a query to Mr. Saha, learned

counsel for the petitioner to ascertain whether the petitioner had applied for

the said post and whether any proof has been submitted by the petitioner in

the writ petition in support of his statement that he had applied for the post of

Turner in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.12.2015.

6. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner has not annexed any such document in the present writ petition.

In view of this, in my opinion, the petitioner has failed to

substantiate his statement that he has applied for the said post in pursuance of

the advertisement. When there is a specific statement in the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the respondents that the petitioner had not applied for any

post in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioner must have submitted the

required document showing that he had applied for the said post. That apart,

selection process was concluded in the year 2021 and successful candidates

were already appointed. Moreso, regularization or absorption is not a matter

of right and it is a right to be considered by the employer as per the service

rules.

It is also surfaced that the petitioner was not engaged as Turner

by observing the established norms of employment as enshrined under Article

14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

In view of this, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

                                                                           JUDGE




SANJAY    Digitally signed by SANJAY
          GHOSH

GHOSH     Date: 2023.08.14 17:36:54
          +05'30'



Snigdha