Tripura High Court
Sri Rishi Raj Chhetree vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 21 September, 2023
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.706 OF 2021
Sri Rishi Raj Chhetree
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Baran, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 21.09.2023
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This present petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of
them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature
thereof, shall not be issued, for transmitting the records, lying with the
respondents, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the
petitioner, and for quashing/setting setting the impugned letter dated
14.07.2017, the Memorandum dated 13.10.2017, the Memorandum dated
28.11.2017 & the two statements each dated 04.09.2021(Annexures-8,9, 13
& 18 respectively supra)
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them,
to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof,
shall not be issued, mandating/commending them, to forthwith
revoke/rescind the impugned letter dated 14.07.2017, the Memorandum
dated 13.10.2017, the Memorandum dated 28.11.2017 & the two
statements each dated 04.09.2021(Annexure-8, 9, 13 & 18 respectively
supra), and thereupon, direct the official respondents to consider the
appointment of the petitioner, as the Head of the Department of
Pharmaceutics, to regulate the imparting of study in the disciple of M.
Pharma(Pharmaceutices) course in the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical
Science & Technology, under the Health & Family Department, Government
of Tripura.
(iii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them,
to show cause as to why a Writ of Quo Warranto and/or in the nature
thereof, shall not be issued, for cancelling and selection and appointment of
the private respondent, to the post of Principal Regional Institute of
Pharmaceutical Sciences & Technology, under the Health & Family
Department, Government of Tripura.
(iv) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them,
to show cause as to why a Writ of Prohibition and/or in the nature thereof,
for restraining/prohibiting them, from acting in any manner, in furtherance
of the impugned Letter dated 14.07.2017, the Memorandum dated
13.10.2017, the Memorandum dated 28.11.2017 & the two statements each
dated 04.09.2021 (Annexure-8, 9, 13 & 18 respectively supra).
(v) Call for the records, appertaining to this writ petition.
(vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute
in terms of (i) to (ii) above;
(vii) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding.
(viii) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon‟ble High Court may deem fit and
proper;"
2. It is the case of the petitioner that vide memorandum
dated 19.12.2001 issued by the Under Secretary, Health and
Family Welfare, he was appointed on a regular basis, to the post of
lecturer in the branch of Pharmaceuticals Science & Technology
and he was posted at the Regional Institute of Pharmaceuticals
Science & Technology (in short „RIPSAT‟). For recruitment to one
unreserved post of Principal (Degree) RIPSAT, an advertisement
was published in Newspaper, thereafter, the letter was issued by
the Secretary Tripura Public Service Commission to the Principal
Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Department, Government of
Tripura for recruitment to the said post. The private respondent
No.6, Sri Suvakanta Dash was found suitable and was
subsequently appointed to the said post. In the year 2018, a
prayer was made under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
seeking a supply of certain documents, pertaining to the private
respondent No.6. The information furnished by the private
respondent, while submitting the attestation form does not match
with information. As such the petitioner herein has filed this
petition challenging the said recruitment process.
3. The official respondents in their counter affidavit
categorically denied and disputed every
allegations/statements/submissions of the petitioner and stated
that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds of
delay and laches. Further, the respondents argued that the
petitioner did not submit any application for appointment to the
post of Principal(Degree) at, Regional Institute of Pharmaceuticals
Science and Technology. At the time of the recruitment process,
the petitioner did not challenge any action of the respondents.
4. The unofficial respondent No.6 in his counter affidavit
countered the argument of the petitioner and stated that the
allegations leveled by the petitioner are incorrect. He further
stated that some writing errors in the attestation form submitted
by the private respondent were allowed to be corrected by the
State respondents and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any
grievance with regard to the same. The petitioner is trying to
project writing/tying errors as a false declaration which is incorrect
on the part of the writ petitioner.
5. The petitioner filed I.A .No.2 of 2023 and this Court
vide order dated 12.07.2023 disposed of the said I.A. in the
following terms:-
".............The present interlocutory application has been filed
for staying any enquiry pursuant to the notification dated 23.05.2023
bearing no. F.8(213)- DME(ESTT) 20217 ( Sub-II) 6477/2224-29 whereby
under the instruction of the Ld. Advocate General, State of Tripura a
preliminary fact finding enquiry committee has been constituted regarding
the alleged qualification deficiency of the Applicant.
At present the Court is not inclined to interfere with the
enquiry proceedings which are the subject-matter before the respondents. It
is also made clear that participating in the said enquiry would not affect the
rights of the petitioner in any way despite the present writ petition being not
finalized before this court as yet.
Any outcome of the enquiry would be subject to the result of
this Writ Petition."
6. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted by
Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S. Saha,
learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents as well as Mr.
S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the un-official respondent
No.6.
7. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the
petitioner while making his submission apart from the averments
made in the affidavit, confined his arguments to the inquiry report
dated 17.06.2023 (Annexure-e to the writ petition). In the inquiry,
the enquiry officers have given categorical findings against the
unofficial respondent No.6 Mr. Suvakanta Dash indicating that the
committee is not satisfied with the reply submitted by the unofficial
respondent No.6 herein i.e., Mr.Suvakanta Dash and they treat it
as non-cooperation with the committee.
8. In view of the said findings, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that his contention that the
un-official respondent No.6 is not qualified for appointment in the
post of Principal (Degree) Group-A, Gazetted RIPSAT, Aboynagar,
Agartala has been proved and the final decision needs to be taken.
9. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., appearing for the
State-respondents submitted that the official respondents it yet to
take a decision due to administrative exigencies since the inquiry
report is only of 17th June, 2023, and, in the due course, the
matter would be decided.
10. In view of the same, without expressing any
opinion on the merits, and in view of the changed circumstances
and the development that has seen the light during the pendency
of this writ, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the
concerned respondents to take a decision in the present subject
matter on the strength of the inquiry report dated 17th June, 2023
as early as possible preferably within a period of 2(two) months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the same be
communicated to all the concerned parties.
11. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.09.25
SINGHA 16:55:13 +05'30'
