Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura & Others vs Smt. Kalpita Sutradhar on 30 January, 2024
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.103/2023
The State of Tripura & others
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
Smt. Kalpita Sutradhar
.........Respondent(s).
Along with
The State of Tripura & others
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
Sri Snehashish Roy
.........Respondent(s).
The State of Tripura & others
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
Sri Raju Debnath
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General,
Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Along with
Smt. Shrabani Ghosh & others
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. Rimi Debbarma, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
30/01/2024
There are three writ appeals arising out of the impugned
judgments which rely upon the case of Pankaj Bhowmik vrs. The State of
Tripura and others [W.A. No.458 of 2020]. The other matter is a writ
petition which has been referred to the Division Bench by order dated
16.08.2023.
Learned Advocate General and learned senior counsel for the
writ petitioners have made preliminary submissions on this issue. Whether
the matter requires reconsideration by a larger Bench or not and whether
the learned Court in the case of Pankaj Bhowmik (supra) had accorded due
consideration to the interplay of the Amendment Act of 2005 of the Tripura
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 and the
relevant sub-rule 8(c) of Rule 8 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 in the context of the enabling
provision under Article 16(4-B) of the Constitution of India requires further
deliberation. Recruitments under the impugned advertisements have been
carried out by the parent department. The writ petitioners were primarily
aggrieved by the carry forward of the unfilled reserved vacancies for
subsequent 'year(s)' and not 'year' which is the import of the language
used in sub-rule 8 clause (c) of the 1992 Rules. The recruitments to the post
of teachers were being carried out by the parent departments.
Learned Advocate General submits that the following
departments need to be added as parties:-
(i) S.T. Welfare Department, Government of Tripura; and
(ii) S.C. Welfare Department, Government of Tripura.
Let them be impleaded in the respective appeals as
respondents.
Let the appellant-State serve notices upon the concerned
departments. The Public Service Commission is not involved in the
recruitment exercise but since it is the constitutional body to carry out
recruitment to the category of the Class-I and Class-II posts in the State, we
would like to have the assistance of the Public Service Commission also as
the issue cuts across recruitment exercises either being carried out by the
Public Service Commission or by the parent departments.
Mr. Raju Datta, learned Standing Counsel of the Tripura
Public Service Commission, is requested to assist the Court with proper
instructions during course of hearing of these matters. Let the name of Mr.
Raju Datta, learned counsel, appear in the cause list also. Let the pleadings
of all the matters be provided to him by the Registry by Friday, the 2nd
February, 2024.
Learned counsel for the parties would provide the compilation
of the relevant Acts and Rules, pari materia Acts and the Rules of the other
States, the circulars or office memorandums issued by the Department of
Personal and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Training, Government of India and any circulars issued by the General
Administration Department of the Government of Tripura.
Learned Advocate General submits that since these matters are
under deliberation before this Court, the impugned judgments may be
stayed as the concerned officials of the department are facing contempt
proceedings.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned judgment dated 25.01.2023 rendered in WP(C) No.942 of 2022,
judgment dated 25.01.2023 rendered in WP(C) No.21 of 2023 and
judgment dated 21.02.2023 rendered in WP(C) No.22 of 2023 shall remain
stayed till further order(s).
Learned counsel for the parties would submit the compilation
at least a week before the next date of hearing.
List the matters on 04.03.2024.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Date: 2024.02.01
16:16:43 +05'30'
