Tripura High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tripura on 11 May, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.957 of 2021
(i) Sri Nishi Kanta Debbarma
S/O-Lt. Jadu Kumar Debbarma,
village-Joy Mangal Para, P.O-Nabinagar,
P.S.- Bishalgarh, Dist. Sepahijala,
PIN-799102. Aged-41 years
(ii) Smt. Tanika Debbarma
D/O-Shri Bharat Debbarma,
Village-Bhati Fatik Charra, P.O-Kamalghat,
P.S-Lefunga, Sub-Division-Mohanpur,
West Tripura. PIN-799219. Aged 38 years.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
represented by Chief Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, P.O:-New Secretariat
Complex, P.S.-New Capital Complex, District-West
Tripura. PIN-799010
2. The Secretary,
The Tripura Legislative Assembly Secretariat,
P.O-New Secretariat Complex, P.S.-NCC,
Kunjavan, Agartala, West Tripura-799010.
....Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anthony Debbarma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. De, Addl. GA
Date of hearing
and delivery of
judgment & order : 11.05.2023
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment and Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. Anthony Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. GA appearing for the
respondents-State.
2. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue Notice upon the Respondents;
(ii)Call for entire Records regarding selection of Junior Reporters
under Tripura Legislative Assembly, Agartala including answer
sheets of written test how we got "0".;
(iii) Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as why
we, the highest scorers among the ST candidates shall not be
appointed"
3. Shortly stated, the petitioners appeared in a selection process for
the post of Junior Reporter under the respondents. The total number of
vacancies for the said post was 6(UR-03 & ST-03). The petitioner no.1
secured a total of 66 marks and the petitioner no.2 secured a total of 56
marks in the said examination. It is the grievance of the petitioners that
the Interview Board has recommended their names in the final merit list,
but the Speaker of Tripura Legislative Assembly has denied their
approval stating that they did not qualify in the written examination as
they have secured "0" mark in the written examination and hence their
approval is not accorded. According to the petitioners, even if they had
secured "0" mark in the written test, there is no bar to recruit them as they
are the highest scorers amongst the ST candidates. It is the case of the
petitioners that they have submitted representation before the competent
authority of the respondents to appoint them to the post reserved for the
ST candidates which were remained unfilled, but getting no response
from them, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I do not
find any merit in the present writ petition. The selection process was
completed in the year 2017 and the petitioners in the year 2021 have
challenged the selection of the candidates who have already been
appointed to the said posts in the year 2017 itself. On this score alone, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed since ex facie, the instant petition is
barred by the doctrine of delay and laches.
5. Moreso, at the insistence of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, this Court directed the State-respondents to produce the
answer scripts in which the petitioners secured "0" mark. On examination
of the answer scripts, I find that there is no error in awarding "0" mark
against the petitioners. None of the answers appeared to be correct. These
answer scripts have also been shown to Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel
for the petitioners for his perusal.
6. However, Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has tried to persuade this Court that though they secured "0"
mark in these two papers, but, they could have been appointed as they
were recommended by the Interview Board.
7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners.
8. The Interview board recommended the names of the petitioners
along with others to fill up the posts of Junior Reporter, but, when it was
placed before the Speaker of the Assembly, then, he verified all the
answer scripts of the candidates and in the note he recorded his finding as
under:
"Approval is hereby accorded for serial No.1, 2 & 3 for appointment
to the post of Junior Reporter. Other two S.T. candidate did not
qualify in the written examination, hence approval is not accorded.
For S.T. candidates fresh interview may be conducted by giving
open advertisement in the local Newspaper."
9. I have considered the issues involved in the writ petition. The post
advertised by the respondents for appointment of Junior Reporter in the
Tripura Legislative Assembly requires a person who is profound in
English subject. It is clear from the answer scripts that the petitioners
secured "0" mark and on verification of the answer scripts it was found
that they were very poor in English.
10. In my opinion, it is the appointing authority to decide who can
cater the best services to the department and who can fulfil the object the
authority concerned wanted to achieve in filling up a particular post.
11. In the context of the case, the Hon'ble Speaker held that the
petitioners were not fit for the post of Junior Reporter. In my opinion, the
Court should not sit over as appellate authority to test the findings and the
ultimate decision of the Hon'ble Speaker of the State Legislative
Assembly in exercise of its power of judicial review as enshrined under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
The answer scripts are returned to Addl. GA.
JUDGE
Snigdha
