Tripura High Court
Anima Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 6 October, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.560/2023
1. Anima Debnath, D/O. Sri Narayan Debnath, Village & P.O.- Bishalgarh,
District-Sepahijala Tripura.
2. Ashim Kumar Das, S/O. Late Amulya Das, West Para, West Para ICDS
Center, Laxmipati, South Tripura, Pin-799116.
.........Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, (To be represented by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Elementary Education and Secondary Education, Government of
Tripura), New Secretariat Building, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.-
New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010.
2. The State Project Director, Tripura, O/o the State Project Director, Samagra
Shiksha, Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department, Govt. of Tripura,
Shiksha Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The District Project Coordinator, (District Education Officer, I/C), Sepahijala
District, Samagra Shiksha, Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department,
Govt. of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Office Lane, Agartala, West
Tripura.
4. The District Project Coordinator, (District Education Officer, I/C), Gomati
District, Samagra Shiksha, Govt. of Tripura, Education (School) Department,
Govt. of Tripura, Shiksha Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Office lane, Agartala, West
Tripura.
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of hearing and judgment: 06th October, 2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr. Karnajit De, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that under the advertisement dated
22.09.2022 notified for filling up the posts of Urban/Block Resource Person
(subject specific), Urban/Block Resource Person (CWSN) and Cluster
Resource Person under Samagra Shiksha in 8(eight) districts, petitioners had
applied against the subject of Bengali. However, in the Final Merit List
published on 05.06.2023, their names have wrongly been shown against the
subject of History. Though they have made a representation (Annexure-19)
before the respondents to recast the merit list, but since no action was taken,
they have approached this Court. Petitioners have enclosed the advertisement
and their educational qualifications as Annexures-1 to 7 respectively. They
have completed Master of Arts in Bengali through Distance Education from
Tripura University in the year 2018 and also completed B.Ed. Degree course in
the year 2020 and 2022 respectively. Being qualified in all respects, they
applied under the advertisement dated 22.09.2022. The advertisement
permitted candidates to apply for vacancies in all the 8(eight) districts
mentioning their degree of choice. Petitioners have enclosed the admit cards
for the examinations scheduled on 15.12.2022 and 16.12.2022 respectively in
respect of each of the petitioners. The petitioners were allotted roll numbers
101245 and 101708 (Annexures-12 & 13) respectively.
3. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners,
has, however, sought to draw the attention of this Court to the
acknowledgements issued in favour of the petitioners on successful submission
of online applications which show their Candidate IDs as 101662 and 102076.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the merit list which has been
published does not show the acknowledgement numbers which creates a doubt
whether the petitioners' applications have been properly processed. Therefore,
he prays that the original application of these petitioners may also be directed
to be produced so that this dispute can be resolved.
4. Apart from the above contention, the petitioners have also in the
body of the writ petition narrated the dates on which their written examinations
were held and pursuant thereto, the results were published on 05.06.2023 vide
Notification No.6951-52 (Annexure-17). Petitioners, therefore, contend that
they have been deprived of being selected in terms of the advertisement dated
22.09.2022 on the vacant post of Urban/Block Resource Person in the subject
of Bengali though there were vacancies available in that subject in Sepahijala
and Gomati Districts. Petitioners also made representations which were not
heeded to and, therefore, they have approached this Court for relief.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The relevant
answers to the specific contention of the petitioners are contained in paragraph-
5(I) to (XI).
6. Mr. Karnajit De, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents-State, has drawn the attention of this Court to the allocation
of marks in the selection process, i.e. 50 marks for written examination; 15
marks for viva and maximum 35 marks on minimum academic qualification as
mandated for the post (Post Graduation in relevant subject for URP/BRP and
Graduation for CRP). It is stated that the written examination for the posts of
URP/BRP (subject specific) and URP/BRP (CWSN) was held on 15.12.2022.
Interviews for the posts of URP/BRP (subject specific) and URP/BRP (CWSN)
were held on 10-12.01.2023 against 3 times of the vacant post of each
category. They have furnished a synopsis under paragraph-5(V) as to how
many candidates were recommended under URP/BRP (subject specific) and
URP/BRP (CWSN). It is further submitted that the merit list has been drawn on
the basis of the marks obtained by the individual candidates under written test,
interview and academic score. A specific statement has been made at
paragraph-5(VII) that both the petitioners had registered (online) for the vacant
posts of Urban/Block Resource Person (History) as is evident from the system
generated data (Annexure-R/2). Their names have been reflected against the
post of Urban/Block Resource Person (History). As the District Project
Coordinators (District Education Officers) are the appointing authorities for the
posts of URP/BRP (subject specific) and URP/BRP (CWSN) and CRP, the
final level of document verifications of candidates listed in the Notification
dated 05.06.2023 were done in two counselling sessions on 24 th & 25th July,
2023 (first counselling session) and 28th & 31st July, 2023 (second counselling
session). The petitioners have attended the said counselling sessions and have
been rejected as they do not possess certificates/mark-sheets pertaining to Post
Graduation in History which is mandatory for the posts of URP/BRP (History)
as per the advertisement dated 22.09.2022. Their representations dated
02.08.2023 and 28.07.2023 respectively have been regretted vide office letters
dated 28.08.2023 as they had registered for the post of URP/BRP (History).
Respondents also deny the statements made at paragraph-6 that Annexures-10
and 11 to the writ petition which are acknowledgement message/slip generated
on successful submission of application mention the respective ID numbers of
the candidates and submit that they don't have reflection of any subject.
Annexures-12 and 13 are admit cards where there is no mention of their choice
of subject. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the results
(Annexure-R/2) shows the roll numbers and names of both the candidates, i.e.
101245 and 101708 as are also reflected from the admit cards at Annexure-12
and 13 respectively in their individual cases. It shows that they had applied for
the subject of History. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, therefore,
submits that petitioners under an erroneous impression that they had applied for
the subject of Bengali have been agitating their grievance though on facts, no
such case is made out.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, taken note of the chronology of facts, dates and events and the relevant
documents as are necessary for adjudication of this issue.
8. The only dispute is whether the petitioners applied for the subject
of Bengali being Post Graduate in the subject of Bengali under the
advertisement dated 22.09.2022 and have been wrongly rejected in the final
merit list dated 05.06.2023 as being shown against the subject of History.
Petitioners rely upon acknowledgements at Annexures-10 and 11 which refer
to the Candidate ID on successful submission of their online applications
whereas petitioners have themselves enclosed Annexures-12 and 13 which are
the admit cards which show their role numbers as 101245 and 101708. The
respondents have categorically stated that the petitioners had applied for the
subject History and not Bengali. The merit list also annexed by the writ
petitioners shows the same roll number against the subject of History. The
acknowledgements at Annexures-10 and 11 are not the enrollment number or
roll number. The results of these two petitioners and others have been tabulated
against the roll numbers allotted to them which in the case of the petitioners
show that they had applied for the subject of History.
9. As such, the entire edifice of the case of the petitioners appears to
be based upon misconception. If the foundation goes, the entire superstructure
has to go. Therefore, petitioners do not appear to make out a case for
interference in the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
PULAK BANIK Date: 2023.10.07
17:22:31 +05'30'
