Tripura High Court
Sri Subhrasarathi Majumder vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 30 January, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WA.No.02 of 2024
Sri Subhrasarathi Majumder
.....Petitioner
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
The State of Tripura and Others
.....Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. S. Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate.
Mr. R. Datta, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
_F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
30.01.2024
[T. Amarnath Goud, J]
Heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Ratan Datta,
learned counsel and Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The present appeal has been filed as per rules and notification
dated 21.03.2023 regarding practice and procedure for filing writ appeal
preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2023 passed by this
Court in writ petition being numbered WP(C) No.333 of 2022.
[3] The facts in brief are that the appellant is an Assistant Engineer
(under Urban Development Department). For promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer rule says that 70% of the total posts are of degree holders
and 30% of diploma holders. Seniority of degree and diploma holders is
maintained separately. But, in promotion, common 100 points roster is
maintained but promotion of the appellant is denied which is contrary to the
rule. Subsequently, the appellant has filed WP(C) No.333 of 2022 before this
Court but, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the same vide judgment and
order dated 21.06.2023. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the
present appeal has been filed before this Court for redress.
[4] The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record has
observed as under:
"17. At the end, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that on
account of such situation, not only are individuals like petitioner, bearing
a sense of perceived injustice, but the functioning of the department is
also suffering in the absence of any incumbent to the post of Executive
Engineer (Mechanical) Grade-III. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that both in the interest of the department and in view
of the long service rendered by the engineers like the petitioner, the
department may be asked to consider the representation of the petitioner
for grant of current duty charge to the post of Executive Engineer
(Mechanical) Grade-III to ensure that the functioning of the
departmentdoes not suffer in the absence of a regular Executive Engineer
(Mechanical) Grade-III.
18. This Court, at this stage, is not in a position to comment whether the
functioning of the department is suffering in the absence of regular
Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Grade-III. However, it is always open to
the respondent department to consider such representation, if made by the
petitioner for the purpose of grant of current duty charge so that the
functioning of the department does not suffer in the ultimate analysis.
19. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
[5] The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. Admit this appeal.
ii. Call for the records.
iii. After hearing both the parties, the appellants are to be given benefit
similarly situated persons approached the Court with WP(C)No.333/2023
and direct the respondents to proceed the appellants' relief as sought for in
the writ petition."
[6] Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the impugned
judgment and order dated 21.06.2023 and also not appreciated the Rule-2(a)
and Rule-29 in TPSE' 1987 are the basic parameters in deciding the case of the
appellant.
[7] It has been further contended that for filling up posts in TPSE Gr.
III Rule-2 stipulates that 70% of total posts is for degree holders and 30% for
diploma holders, in other words, consideration of promotion of degree holders
is limited to 70% of total posts and that of diploma holders to 30%. It has also
not been appreciated that where posts are demarcated to 70:30 ratio and
separate seniority lists are maintained for degree holders and diploma holders
in common 100 points roster in promotion is erroneous. The appellant herein,
deserves consideration of his promotion to Executive Engineer (TPSE
Grade.III) on the basis of separate 100 points roster for diploma holders and as
such, the judgment and order dated 21.06.2023 suffers from non-application of
mind and contrary to the rule and is liable to be set aside.
[8] In reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that the roster repeats after every operation and the fourth post would fall in the
SC category in any case. It is further submitted that since the four posts
belonged to one cadre i.e. Executive Engineer (Mechanical) Grade-III, the
3(three) posts from the feeder cadre of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)
Degree Holders and 1(one) post from Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)
Diploma Holder cannot be segregated.
[9] Any working of the roster in such manner would lead to the
anomalous situation i.e. incumbents from the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)
Grade-IV from the other categories would be ineligible for promotion. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the operation of the
roster is non-discriminatory and applies in a uniform and transparent manner to
all services. As such, the operation of the roster is in conformity with the rules
and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the operation of roster.
[10] In view of above submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and having gone through the material evidence on
record, we are of the opinion that entire facts and reasons have elaborately
been discussed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Court, at this
stage, is not in a position to comment on the functioning of the department and
decide the same afresh. Thus, the present appeal stands dismissed confirming
the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
[11] Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. As sequel,
miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A. Ghosh
ANJAN Digitally signed by
ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.02.03
15:10:14 +05'30'
