Pritam Barman vs The State Of Tripura
2024 Latest Caselaw 1744 Tri

Tripura High Court

Pritam Barman vs The State Of Tripura on 5 November, 2024

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Arindam Lodh

                             Page 1 of 5




                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA

                        WP(C) No.47 of 2024

Pritam Barman
Son of Surjya Mohan Barman, Resident of Vill. & P.O. Anandanagar, P.S.
Srinagar, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799004. (Age-30 years)
                                                            ....Petitioner(s)
                                  VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura
represented by the Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S- New
Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
2. The Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of Tripura
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S- New
Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
3. The Director of Employment Services & Manpower Planning, Tripura
Directorate of Employment Services & Manpower Planning, Agartala, West
Tripura, Pin-799001.
4. The Chairman, Joint Recruitment Board, Tripura
Shram Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
5. The Member Secretary, Joint Recruitment Board, Tripura
Shram Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
6. The Controller, Joint Recruitment Board, Tripura
Shram Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.
                                                         ....Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A Date of hearing & delivery : 05.11.2024 of judgment & order Whether fit for reporting : No

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the

State-respondents including JRBT.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of an

advertisement, he applied to the posts of Junior Operator (Pump) and Junior

Multi-Tasking Operator (un-common). As per the advertisement, the details

of essential qualifications for the said two posts are mentioned as under:-

Name of the Post Details of essential qualification "Eligibility Common for Junior Operator (Pump) criteria and Junior Multi Tasking Operator(un- common) i.e. Junior Operator (Pump) (a) Madhyamik or equivalent examination passed from any recognized Board/Institution.

And

(b) National Trade Certificate (NTC) issued by National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) in any Junior Multi Tasking of the following trade (i) Welder Operator (un-common) (Gas & Electric), (ii) Plumber, (iii) Turner, (iv) Fitter, (v) Mechanic Diesel, (vi) Pump Operator cum Mechanic, (vii) Wireman, (viii) Electrician."

2.1. The petitioner participated in the selection process. The

respondents published the merit list of the candidates, but the name of the

petitioner was not found in the said merit list. The petitioner suspected the

integrity of the merit list and he made an application under RTI Act for

supplying him the total marks he obtained in the written examination and

interview. The Information Officer informed the petitioner that he secured

103 marks in total. The petitioner having found that a candidate was selected

for the concerned post despite securing lower marks had served a legal

notice to consider his case as he secured more marks than that of the selected

candidate, namely Abhijit Sukladas (serial no.1953) who obtained 90 marks

only. But, since the representation was not responded to compelled the

petitioner to file a writ petition before this Court bearing no.WP(C) 728 of

2023 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). While disposing of the said writ

petition, this Court had passed the following directions:-

"In such a situation, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the Chairman, JRBT, respondent no.4 in respect of their

grievances by filing a representation enclosing the copy of the writ petitions also within a period of 1(one) week. Respondent no.4 would consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 4(four) weeks thereafter. Upon such consideration if it is found that the grievance of the petitioner is genuine and legitimate, it would be open for the JRBT to revise the merit list by including the name of the one of the other petitioner whose case has been found to be genuine and to recommend to the competent authority for appointment to the respective post to which they are eligible and found successful. The decision be also communicated to the individual petitioners as per the address indicated in their representation/writ petition thereafter. If the petitioner is adversely affected by such decision he is at liberty to raise his grievances again in an appropriate proceeding."

2.2. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a

fresh representation to the Chairman, Joint Recruitment Board, Tripura (for

short, 'JRBT') on 21.12.2023. On receipt of the said representation, the

competent authority of the JRBT informed the petitioner that his name could

not be recommended in the final merit list against the post of Junior

Operator (Pump) or Junior Multi-Tasking Operator (un-common), as he was

found ineligible for not furnishing necessary trade certificate. It was also

informed to the petitioner that the petitioner submitted the necessary trade

certificate after expiry of 16 days from the date of publication of final merit

list. In view of such rejection of the representation and non-consideration of

his inclusion in the merit list published by JRBT, the petitioner approached

this Court again by way of filing the instant writ petition praying for a

direction upon the respondents to issue mandamus upon the respondents to

include his name in the final merit list for consideration of his appointment

in the post of Junior Operator (Pump) or Junior Multi-Tasking Operator (un-

common).

3. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

from the Trade Certificate of the petitioner(Annexure-3 to the writ petition),

it is apparently clear that the petitioner obtained the said certificate on

11.12.2017. So, it is established that at the time of participation in the

selection process, the petitioner was having the National Trade Certificate

which fulfills the requirements for the post he applied for.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A has opposed

the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that

authorities of JRBT has not committed any wrong in selecting Abhijit

Sukladas since he has fulfilled all the criteria as mentioned in the

advertisement.

5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel appearing

for the parties. From the reply dated 12.01.2024, JRBT has clearly

mentioned that the petitioner has submitted the necessary trade certificate

after expiry of 16 days from the date of publication of the final merit list.

There is no material before this court to substantiate that the petitioner had

submitted trade certificate at the time of submission of his application before

the JRBT. In such a situation, according to me, the respondents have not

excluded the name of the petitioner arbitrarily.

5.1. It is settled principle of law that the Court will definitely

interfere with any executive action if the power to take such action is

exercised arbitrarily or actuated with malice. But, unless and until there is

manifestation of arbitrary exercise of power and the action is found to be

bonafide, the court will refrain from issuance of mandamus upon the

authorities concerned. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to establish

that he fulfilled all the essential qualifications as notified in the

advertisement till the date of publication of final merit list. So, as on the date

of publication of final merit list by the JRBT, no fundamental right of the

petitioner is infringed calling for issuance of mandamus upon the

respondents.

5.2. In the above conspectus, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to

issue mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the

petitioner in the final merit list for the post he applied for. However, I have

left the matter open to the JRBT to consider the case of the petitioner in

accordance with law, if any vacancy exists as he has secured 103 marks.

Any decision in this regard shall be communicated to the petitioner within a

period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The instant writ petition stands disposed with the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE

Rohit

SANJAY byGHOSH

GHOSH Date: 2024.11.06 16:07:03 +05'30'