Tripura High Court
Unknown vs For The on 20 May, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA NO.05 OF 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Present:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General.
Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Ms. M. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.
20.05.2025
Order
Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Advocate
General, assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, as well as Mr. P. Roy Barman,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Paul, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
When the case is called, both sides are
present.
It is the case of the learned Advocate
General appearing for the appellants that, in paragraph 5 of
the counter affidavit, there is a specific pleading indicating
that, in terms of the notification dated 12th February, 2021,
the cut-off date has been fixed as 12th March, 2021. In light
of the same, the petitioner's age is 41 years and 3 days. As
per the original notification dated 27th November, 2020,
issued for the selection process, the age limit for direct
recruitment is 18 to 41 years with the upper age limit being
41 years. COVID affected period was also taken into
consideration.
Since the original notification dated 27th
November, 2020 notified 1,500 appointments, and the
second revised notification increased the number of
appointments to 2,410, with changes to the age limit, and
further, as the second notification dated 12th February, 2021
categorically indicates that the cut-off date is 12.03.2021 (as
contended by the appellants in paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit), the fact that the said notification was not placed
on record before the writ court does not act as an embargo
on the appellants from raising this argument.
Therefore, the learned Advocate General
prays that, considering the contentions made in the counter
affidavit and in light of the notification now placed in the writ
appeal, the same needs to be looked into. Although the
petitioner has secured more marks, he faces disqualification
in terms of age, and therefore, the writ petition itself needs
to be dismissed.
Mr. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent/petitioner, submits before this
Court that the documents now placed by the appellants
cannot be looked into, and submissions based on those
documents cannot be considered, as they are being
introduced for the first time in the writ appeal. On this point,
he pleads for an accommodation to rely on certain
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Request considered.
As prayed for, list this matter on 18.06.2025.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.05.22
SINGHA 15:07:26 +05'30'
