Tripura High Court
Sri Biswajit Som vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 5 February, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.109 of 2023
Sri Biswajit Som
......... Appellant(s);
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
05/02/2024
Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner/appellant herein and Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents-State. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel
for the respondents-Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC).
2. The learned Writ Court has negated the claim for seniority made
by the petitioner/appellant herein above three candidates recommended to the
post of Junior Architect (Group-B Non-Gazetted) by the impugned order dated
26.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No.699/2021.
3. The appellant, though in the select list prepared by TPSC as on
23.04.2008, was at serial No.4 below the private respondents No.5, 6 & 7, but
his case was kept in abeyance as it was found that he would not be entitled to
age relaxation beyond 37 years of age as per Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules of
Junior Architect. He fought a litigation. The learned Appellate Court by
judgment and order dated 05.09.2013 directed the State to reconsider the case
for grant of relaxation of age in favour of the appellant in the light of the
observations made therein above also giving due consideration to the
observations made by the learned Single Judge. The State was directed to
comply with the judgment by 31.10.2013. It was also indicated that if it is
found that claimant is entitled to relaxation, if necessary, a supernumerary post
shall be created for him. Petitioner was finally appointed by office order dated
04.03.2014 issued by the Public Works Department, Government of Tripura
after giving him the relaxation.
4. Appellant approached this Court after a round of litigations under
the RTI Act to obtain the select list. The select list was also summoned by the
learned Writ Court during course of the proceedings of the writ petition.
Appellant's grievance was that though his appointment has been reckoned from
the date of others, but his seniority has been unsettled.
5. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, has pointed out
to the memorandum dated 13.08.2019 which contains the fixation of pay in
respect of the appellant for the post of Junior Architect (Group-B
Non-Gazetted). It is pointed out that his date of appointment has been treated
with effect from 30.05.2008. The seniority list dated 20.08.2021 [Annexure-11]
of Junior Architect (Degree Holder), Group-B (G) where appellant stands at
serial No.4 below the private respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though appellant
has been appointed later on after a litigation, but his seniority has not been
properly fixed. Learned Writ Court, despite calling for the select list, failed to
remedy the injustice caused to the petitioner/appellant herein on the ground that
the seniority list has been prepared in the year 2016 and it is difficult for the
Court to unsettle the position regarding seniority position of all the Junior
Architects without any materials in that regard. Therefore, the impugned order
may be interfered.
7. Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents-State and Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the respondents-
TPSC, submit that even as per the case set up by the appellant as per the select
list at Annexure-R/13, appellant got 55 marks in the same unreserved category
as that of the private respondents who got 69, 64 and 59 marks respectively
who were above him. Appellant was appointed in March, 2014 after granting
relaxation in age in terms of Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules of Junior
Architect upon a decision of the cabinet. The appointment has been given effect
to from the original date i.e. 30.05.2008, but the seniority list does not suffer
from any infirmity as the private respondents were above him in the common
merit list prepared by the TPSC in respect of the recruitment exercise held
under the advertisement of 2007 for the post of Junior Architect in the Public
Works Department, Government of Tripura. Learned Writ Court, taking into
consideration all these facts, rightly refused to grant any relief as neither any
case was made on merits, nor the seniority position could be unsettled when
other incumbents ranked above him in the merit list have been in service since
2008.
8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the materials placed from record. We have also gone
through the impugned order.
The factual narrative need not be repeated again. The case of the
appellant hinges upon the select list in which he is found to be below the
private respondents in the same unreserved category. As such, delay in his
appointment compared to the others in March, 2014 would have made no
difference as his appointment was given effect to from the same date i.e.
30.05.2008 like the others, but this did not unsettle the seniority position of the
private respondents who were above him in the common merit list in the same
category. The litigation journey does not enure any benefit to the appellant on
that count; neither the learned Division Bench made any observation to that
effect while disposing of the writ appeal for the State to reconsider his case for
relaxation of age vide judgment dated 05.09.2013. As such, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Writ Court.
9. The instant appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush/
PULAK BANIK Date: 2024.02.07
15:32:54 +05'30'
