Tripura High Court
Shri Debashish Roy vs Tripura Public Service Commission on 5 April, 2022
Author: S.G. Chattopadhyay
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, S. G. Chattopadhyay
Page - 1 of 29
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A No. 22 of 2018
Shri Debashish Roy,
Son of late Swadesh Ranjan Roy, College Tilla, Adarsha Palli, East
of RTP Girls' School, P.O- Agartala College, Tripura (W), Pin-799004
..........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Tripura Public Service Commission,
(An autonomous statutory body constituted for the purpose of
selection and recommendation to various posts as per requirement
by the Govt. of Tripura, having its office at Akhaura Road, Agartala,
West Tripura), represented by The Chairman, Tripura Public Service
Commisssion, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Secretary,
Tripura Public Service Commission, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The State of Tripura
to be represented by The Director of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, Agartala
4. The Under Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura.
5. Smt. MunMun Das Biswas,
Assistant Professor, d/o Ganesh Chandra Das Biswas, Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education, Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park,
Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura.
6. Smt. Banasree Chakraborti,
d/o- Matilal Chakraborty, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S.Kumarghat, District- Unakoti
Tripura, Pin-799264.
7. Sri Hillol Mukherjee,
s/o Sankari Prasad Mukherjee, Assistant Professor, Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin- 799006, District- West Tripura.
8. Smt Rituparna Chakraborty,
d/o- Puranjan Prasad Chakraborty, Assistant Professor, Institute of
Advanced Sutdies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin- 799006, District-West Tripura.
9. Smt. Binapani Saha,
d/o late Jogesh Chandra Saha, Assistant Professor, Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin - 799006, District - West
Tripura.
Page - 2 of 29
10. Sri Bishnupada Shome,
s/o- Rakesh Ranjan Shome, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Tripura, Pin -799264.
11. Smt. Nandita Majumder,
d/o Phani Bhusan Majumder, Assistant Professor, Institute Of
Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin- 799006, District- West Tripura.
12. Dr. Partha Sarathi Ghosh,
s/o Ratan Kumar Ghosh, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park,
Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin- 799006, District-West Tripura.
13. Smt.Chandana Bhowmik
D/o Kanti Bhusan Bhowmik , Assistant Professor, Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin- 799006, District-West Tripura
14. Sri Saikat Saha,
s/o late Pradip Chandra Saha, Assistant Professor, College of
Teacher Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District -
Unakoti Tripura, Pin- 799264.
15. Smt. Bulti Debnath,
D/o Chitta Ranjan Debnath, Assistant Professor, Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education (IASE)), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin -799006, District - West Tripura.
16. Smt. Pratima Das,
d/o Jagadish Chandra Das, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Triprua, Pin- 799264.
17. Smt. Atoshi Chakma,
d/o late Kalpa Ranjan Chakma, Assistant Professor, College of
Teacher Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District -
Unakoti Tripura, Pin- 799264.
18. Sri Uttam Kumar Das,
s/o Lal Mohan Das, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Tripura, Pin- 799264.
19. Smt. Jasmine Rupini,
d/o Chandroday Rupini, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Tripura, Pin- 799264.
20. Sri Sudhir chandra Das,
s/o Dhirendra Chandra Das, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Tripura, Pin- 799264.
Page - 3 of 29
21. Sri Ajit Roga,
s/o Sachin Roga, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education,
P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, DistrictUnakoti Tripura, Pin-
799264.
22. Sri Sambhu Debbarma,
s/o Charan Krishna Debbarma, Assistant Professor, College of
Teacher Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District -
Unakoti Triprua, Pin- 799264.
23. Smt. Dipti Debbarma,
d/o late Biralal Debbarma, Assistant Professor, Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage
Park, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin- 799006, District-West Tripura
24. Smt. Himabati Reang,
d/o Nagendra Reang, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Tripura, Pin- 799264.
25. Sri Uttam Mitra,
s/o Haripada Mitra, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher
Education, P.O- Pabiachhera, P.S- Kumarghat, District - Unakoti
Tripura, Pin- 799264.
..........Respondent(s)
W.A. No. 09 Of 2019 Shri Chandan Kumar Paul, Son of Sri Biswanath Paul, Gangail Road, South of Netaji School, P.O.- Agartala, PS- West Agartala, Tripura (W), PIN- 799001 ..........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Tripura Public Service Commission, (An autonomous statutory body constituted for the purpose of selection and recommendation to various posts as per requirement by the Govt. Of Tripura, having its office at Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura) represented by the Chairman, Tripura Public Service Commission, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Secretary.
Tripura Public Service Commission, Agartala, West Tripura
3. The State of Tripura, To be represented by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, Agartala
4. The Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura
5. Smt. Himabati Reang, d/o Nagendra Reang, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799264 Page - 4 of 29
6. Sri Uttam Mitra, s/o Haripada Mitra, Assistant Professor College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
7. Smt. Banasree Chakraborti, D/o Matilal Chakraborti, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
8. Sri Hillol Mukherjee, S/o Sankari Prasad Mukherjee, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
9. Smt. Rituparna Chakraborty, D/o Puranjan Prasad Chakraborty, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
10. Smt. Binapani Saha, D/o late Jogesh Chandra Saha, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, PO- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
11. Sri Bishnupada Shome, S/o Rakesh Ranjan Shome, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
12. Smt. Nandita Majumder, d/o Phani Bhusan Majumder, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
13. Dr. Partha Sarathi Ghosh, S/o Ratan kumar Ghosh, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
14. Smt. Chandana Bhowmik, D/o Kanti Bhusan Bhowmik, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
15. Sri Saikat Saha, S/o late Pradip Chandra Saha, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799264 Page - 5 of 29
16. Smt. Bulti Debnath, D/o Chitta Ranjan Debnath, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
17. Smt. Pratima Das, D/o Jagadish Chandra Das, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
18. Smt. Atoshi Chakma, D/o late Kalpa Ranjan Chakma, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799264
19. Sri Uttam Kumar Das, S/o Lal Mohan Das, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
20. Smt. Jasmine Rupini, D/o Chandroday Rupini, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
21. Sri Sudhir Chandra Das, S/o Dhirendra Chandar Das, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
22. Sri Ajit Roga, s/o Sachin Roga, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin- 799264
23. Sri Sambhu Debbarma, S/o Charan Krishna Debbarma, Assistant Professor, College of Teacher Education, P.O. Pabiachhera, P.S. Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, Pin-799264
24. Smt. Dipti Debbarma, D/o late Biralal Debbarma, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura
25. Smt. Mun Mun Das Biswas, D/o Ganesh Chandra Das Biswas, Assistant Professor, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Kunjaban, Near Heritage Park, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban, Pin-799006, District- West Tripura ..........Respondent(s) Page - 6 of 29 BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY In WA No. 22 of 2018 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty. Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Roy Barman. Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Mangal Debbarma. Advocate.
Mr. Arijit Bhowmik. Advocate Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Ms.P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Ms. A Debbarma, Advocate.
In WA No. 09 of 2019For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Tapas Halam, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty. Sr. Advocate Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate.
Mr. Arijit Bhowmik. Advocate.
Ms.P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
Judgment & Order : 5th April, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)
(S.G. Chattopadhyay, J)
Both of these writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 3.4.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 496 of 2015 and WP(C) No. 674 of 2015. The questions raised in both of these writ appeals being common and identical, they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment.
Page - 7 of 29 [2] In writ appeal 22 of 2018 against the common judgment and order dated 03.04.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 496 of 2015 (Debashish Roy Vs Tripura Public Service Commission) petitioner challenged the selection in the post of Assistant Professor in Education in the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE in short) / College of Teachers Education (CTE, in short) under the Education (Higher) Department, Government of Tripura. Similarly, writ appeal 09 of 2019 has been filed against the judgment and order passed in WP(C) No. 674 of 2015 in which petitioner Chandan kumar Paul had challenged the selection in the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science in the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education ( IASE) / College of Teachers Education (CTE) under the Education (Higher)Department Government of Tripura. In both the writ petitions, petitioners called in question the appointment of the private respondents viz. respondent nos. 5 to 25.
[3] Having due regard to the variation in the factual context of the cases, minimal facts of each of the cases need to be introduced at the outset which are as under:
WP(C) No. 496 of 2015
[Debasish Ray vs. Tripura Public Service Commission and Ors.] [4] Petitioner Debashish Roy, who had been serving as a Post Graduate Teacher under the Higher Education Department in the Government of Tripura completed Masters of Arts in English and Masters of Arts in Education. He also acquired a B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) Page - 8 of 29 degree. The petitioner had as well cleared the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET), conducted by SLET Commission in the year 2011 and National Eligibility Test (NET) in Education conducted by University Grants Commission (UGC) in the year 2012. These facts are not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) who was respondent no.1 before the learned Single Judge issued advertisement No.1-2015(Annexure-2 to the writ petition), inviting application from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor for IASE/ CTE. In the said advertisement it has been provided as under:
"Subject wise vacancy for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Group-A Gazetted), Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE)/College of Teachers Education (CTE) is mentioned below:
Sl. Subject No. of Sl. Subject No.
No. Post No. of
pos
t
1. Psychology 02 8. Political 01
Science
2. Economics 02 9. History 01
3. Bengali 03 10. Mathematics 01
4. English 03 11. Physics 01
5. Chemistry 02 12. Life Science 01
6. Education 06 13. Geography 01
7. Sanskrit 02 14. Commerce 01
Educational & Other qualification:
Essential:
(i) A Master's Degree in Science /
Humanities / Arts with 50% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University.
(ii) M.Ed. with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University.
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/Any such affiliation body/State Govt. from time to time for the positions of Principal and Lectures, shall be mandatory.
Or
(i) M. A. in Education with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed ) from a recognized University.
Page - 9 of 29
(ii) B. Ed. With at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University and
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/Any such affiliation body/State Govt. from time to time for the positions of Principal and Lectures, shall be mandatory." [5] Petitioner Debashish Roy having possessed the essential qualifications in terms of the said advertisement, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Education. Admittedly, at the time of applying for the post he was completely aware of the procedure of selection. The petitioner claimed that the additional qualifications possessed by him should have added advantage for selection. He further claimed that the subject expert in the interview board was occupying the position of an Assistant Professor. According to the petitioner, as per rule it was expected that the interview board constituted by TPSC would have an expert holding a post higher than the post of Assistant Professor for each of the subjects.
[6] Petitioner challenged the selection of the private respondents in the post of Assistant Professor in Education . The further grounds that none of them had the essential qualifications like NET/SLET as stipulated in the UGC regulations of 2010. But those candidates were appointed as Assistant Professor by the State-respondents on 31.3.2015, when the election code of conduct for election in Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) was in force and issuance of appointment order in Government service was prohibited under such election code of conduct. The further ground of objection was that even though the number Page - 10 of 29 of applicants for the post of Assistant Professor was 120, TPSC did not hold any written/ screening test for short listing the candidates as per rule. Petitioner claimed that it was clearly stipulated in the advertisement that if the number of candidates exceeded a certain limit in comparison to the number of vacancies, a screening test would be conducted for short listing the candidates. Number of vacancies notified by the advertisement in Education were only 06 whereas 120 candidates applied for the post. Therefore, the Commission had deviated from its espoused policy by not holding a written/screening test for short listing the candidates. [7] Petitioner also claimed that the Commission did not declare subject wise merit list in terms of the UGC regulations for which the selection process was liable to be cancelled. After the recommendations for appointment were made by Tripura Public Service Commission, petitioner applied to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of TPSC seeking disclosure of the relevant information under the Right to information Act. In response, it was declared by TPSC that selections were made in terms of the Recruitment Rules and guidelines contained in the advertisement.
[8] Petitioner further claimed that clubbing of the selection process for recruitment of Assistant Professor for IASE and CTE was completely illegal because in IASE both B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses were conducted where as in CTE only B.ED course was conducted. Therefore, Page - 11 of 29 the Commission should not have clubbed the selection process for both of these institutions together.
[9] On 11.05.2015, the petitioner submitted representation to the Secretary, TPSC for cancellation of the selection of candidates who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria in terms of the UGC and NCTE regulations. [10] In reply to the said representation of the petitioner, TPSC had clearly asserted that selection was made in terms of the eligibility criteria laid in NCTE guidelines which were notified by gazette notification (Government of India) in its issue dated 1.12.2014. TPSC had made the following assertion in its reply:
"The selection has been made on the performance in the Interview Board and the overall assessment of the candidates such as the academic achievements, personality, intelligence, general knowledge and other interests and hobbies etc. of the candidates were taken into consideration. Grades/ marks were awarded on the basis of consensus of the Members of the Board."
[11] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the reply, petitioner submitted demand notice dated 29.6.2015 and further demand notice dated 13.7.2015 (Annexure -9 collectively) raising similar contentions. Thereafter, the petitioner issued remainder dated 2.8.2015 adding more facts. In reply to the demand notice dated 29.6.2015 and remainder dated 2.8.2015, TPSC had categorically stated that in terms of the requisitions received from the administrative department, TPSC had taken initiative to recommend for direct recruitment in 27 vacant posts of Assistant Professor in various subjects in IASE and CTE based on the Recruitment Rules published by notification No. F. (668)-DHE/Estt(G)/11 dated 18.7.2014 as Page - 12 of 29 incorporated in the advertisement dated 3. 1. 2015. The reply given by TPSC to the said demand notices of the petitioner contend as under:
"On being interviewed the eligible candidates the Commission recommended the name of21(twenty one) suitable candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors, IASE/College of Teachers Education. Accordingly, the Department appointed the recommended candidates on 31.03.2015 with direction to report for duties in the place of posting on 10.04.2015 and they already reported in their duties.
In consultation of the demand notices in question it is observed that the notice given namely Sri Debashish Roy has applied for the post of Assistant Professor, IASE/College of Teacher Education in the subject/specialization of Education in reference to the advertisement of the TPSC No. 1/2015 (Item No. 1) dated 03.01.2015 and participated in the recruitment process taken by the Commission. Hence, it is relevant to mention here that the notice giver has not challenged the Recruitment Rules/advertisement before participating in the Recruitment process. But, the notice giver preferred demand notice on being unsuccessful as per publication of the result/recommendation of the TPSC, which is not sustainable in the law point of view.
In view of the above, it is pertinent to mention here that the TPSC is a statutory body/competent authority for selection of suitable candidates in reference to the Recruitment Rules/advertisement for direct recruitment to the Group-A & B (Gazetted) posts, while the Commission recommended 21(twenty one) suitable candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, IASE/CTE, Kumarghat and all grievances of the notice giver were against the selection process of the TPSC.As such, we do not have any other information in this regard."
[12] In his demand notice dated 29.6.2015 petitioner categorically asserted that private respondent no. 5 did not qualify NET/SLET which was an essential qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules and guidelines contained in notification dated 1.12.2014. Petitioner served another notice to the Commission on 13.7.2015 containing some general allegations of irregularities without any illustration.
Page - 13 of 29 [13] From the notification dated 31.3.2015 which provides a subject/ discipline wise statement in respect of total applications received by the Commission, it would appear that in Education 212 applications were received and for Political Science 37 applications were received. After scrutiny, 120 candidates were found eligible to take part in the selection process for Education and 16 were found eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science.
[14] It would further emerge from the record that after interview following 5 candidates were found suitable for the recommendation for appointment as Assistant Professor in Education: (1) Uttam Mitra (UR-PH)- Sl. No. 12 (2) Sudhir Ch. Das (SC) Sl. No. 18
(3) Ajit Rouga (ST) Sl. No.19 (4) Sambhu Debbarma (ST) Sl. No.20 (5) Dipti Debbarma (ST) Sl. No. 21 [15] Similarly, the following candidate was found suitable for recommendation for appointment as Assistant Professor in Political Science:(1) Smti. Himabati Reang (ST ) Sl. No. 16
[16] Only one candidate was thus selected for appointment as Assistant Professor in Political Science. Total no of candidates recommended by TPSC for different discipline was 21 based on their performance in the interview. It would appear from the list of candidates recommended for appointment as Assistant Professor in the discipline of Education that all the 5 candidates belong to reserved category. So far as Page - 14 of 29 the petitioner is concerned he belongs to UR category. Therefore, he should have not any grievance against those who were selected against the reserved category. More significantly, petitioner had impleaded the selected candidates from other discipline in his writ petition knowing it fully well that he does not possess the required qualification for appointment in those disciplines.
[17] The Petitioner had also raised objection on the ground that 100 point roaster was not followed by TPSC in respect of recommendation of candidates against the vacancies in each of the disciplines. Petitioner also contended that the NCTE guidelines relating to educational qualification for maintaining the required standard of higher education for appointment in the post of Assistant Professor were not followed but the petitioner could not explain as to how such guidelines were violated or how the fairness in conducting the selection was compromised by the TPSC.
[18] TPSC (respondent no.1) submitted written response to the assertions made by the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit. The averments made by TPSC may briefly be summarised as under:
(i) The TPSC has followed the NCTE guidelines which was notified in the Gezettee of India published on 01.12.2014 (Annexure -B to their reply).
(ii) All the posts were the Assistant Professor in Teachers Training College who would teach B.Ed. Class. Their qualification was prescribed in the NCTE notification dated 1.12.2014 and those are as follows:
5.2 Qualification B. Perspective in Education or Foundation Course Page - 15 of 29
(i) Postgraduate degree in Social Science with minimum 55% marks, and
(ii) M. Ed. Degree from a recognized university with minimum 55% marks;
Or
(i) Postgraduate (MA) degree in Education with minimum 55% marks; and
(ii) B. Ed/ B. El. Ed. Degree with minimum 55%marks .
(iii) Clearance of NET and SLET are not compulsory for eligibility to the post of Assistant Professor in B.Ed degree college as shown in the said notification dated 01.12.2014. [19] Other than the State-respondents, private respondents 5, 17,19,24 and 25 in a group and respondents 6,10,14,16, 18, 21 and 22 in another group separately filed their counter affidavits asserting that the writ petition was not maintainable because all of them had possessed the essential qualifications as per the rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in the respective discipline and more over, the petitioner had challenged the action of the respondents after participating in the selection process being fully aware about the selection procedure. He questioned the selection process only after he failed to succeed in the selection process.
WP(C) No. 674 of 2015
[Chandan Kr. Paul vs. Tripura Public Service Commission and Ors.] [20] By filing this writ petition, petitioner Chandan Kumar Paul challenged the selection of Assistant Professor in Political Science in IASE/ CTE. Petitioner acquired Master of Arts in Political Science and Master of Arts in Education and Bachelor of Education from IASE.
Page - 16 of 29 Besides, he had cleared NET conducted by UGC in 2010 and SET by SLET Commission in 2011 in Political Science. Thereafter, he was pursuing Ph.D programme in Political Science in Tripura University. Having qualifications more than the requisite qualifications, he applied for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science in response to the said advertisement (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). [21] As stated above, Smti. Himabati Reang , respondent no. 5 in this writ petition was the only candidate who was recommended for appointment as an Assistant Professor in Political Science against ST quota. Apparently, the petitioner was a candidate of general category but he not only challenged the recommendation of Smti. Himabati Reang, he had also challenged the recommendation of candidates in all other disciplines on the same grounds of which the petitioner Debashish Roy had challenged those recommendations in WP(C) No. 496 of 2015. In this writ petition, petitioner Chandan Kumar Paul also claimed that selection was illegal and untenable since subject wise reservation was not applied.
[22] All other grounds of challenge being exactly identical with the grounds taken by the other writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 496 of 2015, those are not recorded to avoid repetition.
[23] TPSC (respondent no.2) maintained the same line of defence taken by them in WP(C) NO. 496 of 2015 [Debashish Roy vs. Tripura Public Service Commission and Ors.]. Among the other respondents, Page - 17 of 29 reply was filed by respondents 3 and 4 denying the allegations raised by the petitioner. It has been averted by State-respondents 3 and 4 that a requisition was sent to TPSC for recommending candidates for filing up 27 vacancies in the post of Assistant Professor in various discipline in IASE Agartala and CTE Kumarghat . Along with their reply the said respondents also submitted the relevant Recruitment Rules and a table showing the vacancy position in each of the disciplines. For Political Science there was only 1 vacancy and there were 6 vacancies in the discipline of Education. As per the Recruitment Rules submitted by the said respondents following were the essential qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor in IASE and CTE :-
"Essential Qualifications:
A. (i) A Master's Degree in Science/Humanities/Arts with 50% marks ( or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University.
(ii) M. Ed. With at least 55% marks ( or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University.
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/Any such affiliating body/State Govt., from time to time for the positions of Principals and Lectures shall be mandatory. OR
(i) MA in Education with 55% marks ( or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University.
(ii) B. Ed. With at least 55% marks ( or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) from a recognized University and
(iii) Any other stipulation prescribed by the UGC/Any such affiliating body/ State Govt., from time to time for the positions of Principal and Lectures shall be mandatory."
[24] Respondent No.5 Smti. Himabati Reang whose appointment was questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition stated in her reply that Page - 18 of 29 she acquired MA in Political Science, B.Ed. and M.Ed., from Tripura University and she had also cleared SLET in the year 2015. She further stated on affidavit that she had secured 56.25% marks in her MA examination, 60.07% in B.Ed. and 67.83% in her M.Ed. examination. She claimed that she had thus possessed all the essential qualifications for appointment in the post of Assistant Professor in IASE and CTE. [25] The other private respondents filed separate counter affidavits group wise claiming that they possessed the basic essential qualifications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in the respective discipline in IASE or CTE.
[26] Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued before the learned Single Judge that the private respondents who were recommended by TPSC for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in different disciplines for IASE and CTE did not possess the basic qualifications in terms of UGC regulations. Learned counsel contended that the UGC regulations of 2010, prescribe minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standard in higher education which has specifically prescribed that the candidate must possess the following qualifications to apply for selection in the said post:
"4.4.1. Arts, Humanities, Science, Social Science ,Commerce, Education, Languages, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication.
(i) Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in Page - 19 of 29 a point scale wherever grading system is followed)at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university.
(ii)Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET.
(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub clauses (i) and (ii) to this clause 4.4.1,candidates,who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D Degree accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph. D Degree )Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/ Colleges/ Institutions.
(iv) NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted."
[27] Counsel of the petitioners also argued before the learned Single Judge that the procedure adopted by TPSC for selection and recommendation of candidates was completely illegal and untenable because in the instant case instead of following subject wise reservation, reservation was applied taking all the professors of different disciplines as a cadre which violated the direction of the Apex Court in State of UP and Ors. v. M.C. Chattopadhyaya and Ors. reported in 2004 12 SCC 336, where in the Apex Court enunciated the law as under :
"6. While, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there can be a reservation in respect of post of Professor and the provisions of the Reservation Act would apply, but the same cannot be applied taking all the Professors as a cadre and it has to be made subject wise, as has been earlier construed and held by this Court. We are also of the opinion that there cannot be a reservation for an isolated post. We further observe that in deciding the question of reservation the appropriate authority must follow the roster as has been published in exercise of power under Section 3(5) of the Reservation Act and then the roster should be duly complied with in accordance with the principles enunciated by this Court in Sabharwal case."
[Emphasis added] Page - 20 of 29 [28] Counsel of the petitioner further contended before the learned Single Judge that the selection process was liable to be quashed on the ground that discipline wise merit list was not prepared applying discipline wise reservation and moreover, the candidates who were recommended for appointment did not clear NET or SLET which was an essential qualification for appointment as an Assistant Professor in any discipline. [29] Counsel appearing for the State-respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the counsel of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. It was contended on behalf of the State -respondents that the said UGC regulations of 2010 would have no implication in the case. On the contrary the said recruitment would be guided and governed by NCTE guidelines published in the gazette of India in its issue dated 1.12.2014(Annexure- B to the counter affidavit) of the State- respondents. [30] The State counsel also contended that all the candidates (State respondents) recommended by TPSC had possessed the basic and essential qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. Moreover, the writ petitioners had never challenged the said Recruitment Rules. While refuting the contentions of the counsel of the petitioner that no subject wise merit list was prepared, counsel representing TPSC produced before the learned Single Judge copy of the subject wise merit list for Political Science and Education. Counsel appearing for TPSC argued before the learned Single Judge that there was no merit in the writ petitions which were liable to be rejected.
Page - 21 of 29 [31] Counsel representing the private respondents argued before the learned Single Judge that the private respondents who were recommended for appointment possessed the basic and essential qualifications in their respective discipline and based on their performance in the interview and on application of reservation policy, TPSC recommended their names for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in respective discipline for IASE and CTE and the writ petitioners having failed to establish their contentions, those petitions were liable to be rejected.
[32] On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents produced before the Court and the submissions made by the respective counsel of the parties, the learned Single Judge held that it was clearly declared in the official website of TPSC that the selection would be made by interview only. Being completely aware of the method of selection and having participated in the selection process, the petitioner was estopped to question the methodology of selection. It was also held by learned Single Judge that the petitioners even questioned the selection in the other disciplines for which they did not possess the requisite qualifications which disentitled them to even ask for a writ of certiorari . The learned Single Judge, therefore, declined to interfere with the recommendation made by TPSC and the recruitment which was made by the State-respondents following such recommendation. It would be Page - 22 of 29 appropriate to reproduce the following observation of the learned Single Judge :
"[31] As regards the estoppel by conduct, the counsel for the official respondents have placed their reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in D. Sarojakumari v.R. Helen Thilakom and Ors., reported in 2017 (11)Scale 366 where the Apex Court after considering the precedents on estoppel by conduct has observed that having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was made under the general rules, the respondents have waived a right to question that the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance by the respondents. A candidate cannot turn around after taking part in the selection process.
[32] The other counsel appearing for the private respondents have adopted the submission made by Mr.Chakraborty, Addl. G.A. and Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the TPSC respondents.
[33] Having appreciated the submissions, made by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that so far the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in IASC or CTE is concerned, such recruitment cannot be governed by the UGC regulation, 2010 as published in the Gazette of India dated 18.09.2010. The said recruitment shall wholly be guided by the notification published by the National Council for Teachers Education in the Gazettee of India dated 01.12.2014. Thus, the essential qualifications as prescribed in that notification would be the basis and the essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in IASE or CTE. Even in the Recruitment Rules those provisions are engrafted. Hence, there is no substance in the plea that unless someone clears the NET or SLET he/she cannot be selected for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in IASE or CTE.
[34] From scrutiny of the records, this Court has found that the discipline-wise merit list was prepared on the basis of the performance in the interview. The said assessment cannot be interfered by this Court, unless the mala fide is specifically plead and proved against the individual members of the interview board on impleading them as the party in the proceeding. But in this case, except one solitary and sweeping allegation, there is no material in support of the allegation of mala fide. When an expert body assesses the performance the Court is loath in interfering their assessment unless it is demonstrated that the individual members of the interview board acted malafide or in breach of the espoused procedural facets. Hence, this plea also falls through as this Court has referred the relevant part of the merit list. The petitioner did not secure such marks in their respective category to be recommended by the TPSC.
[35] The other question that has been raised regarding earmarking the post before-hand in terms of the reservation policy, there cannot be any doubt that the official respondents owe an obligation to earmark the post following the statutory roster before-hand. While making the requisition, the Page - 23 of 29 respondents No. 3 and 4 had asserted that the reserved seats against the total bulk of 27 vacant posts, but not discipline- wise. That is the reason, perhaps why the TPSC had followed the old principle, adjusting the reservation in terms of the merit. But in this writ petition no averments had been made what would expose the prejudice. No doubt even the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the statement that in Dr.Md. Nizan Hussain (supra) this Court had directed the State for affirmative action in respect of the reservation discipline-wise. But it is an admitted position that the recommendation under challenge was made prior to the judgment of Dr. Md. Nizan Hussain (supra). Hence, this court would revisit that aspect.
[36] This Court is totally in agreement that both the petitioners cannot question the method of selection as that was well adverted by way of the advertisement No. 1- 2015(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) Moreover, in Clause- 10it has been stated that the instructions to the candidate will be available in the official website of the TPSC and in that website it is clearly stated that the selection would be made by interview. "The recruitment by interview only" .Being aware of this method and having participated thereafter in the selection process, the petitioners are estopped to question the methodology of selection.
[37] When the petitioners have challenged the selection of the other discipline, having not qualified to be recruited in the said discipline such challenge is usually to be axed at the threshold in view of the will settled position of law that persons without the eligibility to be appointed cannot ask for writ of certiorari. Hence, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the selection process nor with the recommendation as made by the TPSC and further, nor with the recruitment that has been made in favour of the private respondents.
In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed."
[33] As stated , by filing separate appeals, the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The private respondents did not have the requisite qualifications as per NCTE regulations of 2014 and most of them did not clear NET/SLET.
(ii) Learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that TPSC did not follow subject wise reservation while recommending candidates for recruitment to the said post.
Page - 24 of 29
(iii) The learned Single Judge did not also appreciate the fact that the interview board was constituted in violation of the prescribed rules and more over, the UGC guidelines for maintaining optimum standards of higher education were not followed by TPSC while recommending the candidates for the post of Assistant Professor .
(iv) The learned Single Judge did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents available on record and reached an erroneous conclusion.
[34] In the course of arguments before us, counsel appearing for the appellants has mainly emphasised on the ground that subject wise reservation was not applied. TPSC at the time of recommendation as well as the State-respondents at the time of recruitment treated the post of Assistant Professor for all disciplines as a cadre and applied reservation policy without maintaining 100 point roaster which deprived the petitioners of their legitimate claim to a fair selection. [35] In support of their contention counsel of the petitioners have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Verma and Ors. vs the Chancellor reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2023 where in the Apex Court had agreed with a full bench decision of the Karnataka High Court that the impugned employment notice was bad in law since it had failed to notify the reservation of the posts subject wise Page - 25 of 29 and had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without indicating the particular posts so reserved subject wise. [36] Counsel of the petitioners have also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of UP and Ors. vs M.C. Chattopadhayay and Ors. reported in 2004 12 SCC 333 which was also relied upon by them before the learned Single Judge in which the Apex Court observed as under :
"6. While, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there can be a reservation in respect of post of Professor and the provisions of the reservation Act would apply, but the same cannot be applied taking all the Professors as a Cadre and it has to be made subject-wise, as has been earlier construed and held by this Court. We are also of the opinion that there cannot be a reservation for an isolated post. We further observe that in deciding the question of reservation the appropriate Authority must follow the roster as has been published in exercise of power under Section 3(5) of the Reservation Act and then the roster should be duly complied with in accordance with the principles enunciated by this Court in Sabharwal's case.
7. The conclusion of the impugned judgment on the basis of the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Niwas Pandey (supra) is possibly not a correct reading of the aforesaid judgment. We are told that the very advertisement that was issued in the year 1995 which came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Dr. Dina Nath Shukla was the judgment which was under consideration before the Allahabad High Court in the impugned judgment. This Court in paragraph 16 having held that the law is declared and the Vice Chancellor would work out the details and make a fresh advertisement and have the selection done in accordance with law and appointments made accordingly, we really fail to understand how anything survived for the High Court in the impugned judgment to give any direction contrary to the same. Be that as it may, since we have already indicated and explained the position of law, the Vice Chancellor of the University would act accordingly."
[37] Counsel also relied on the judgment of this court in Dr. Md. Mijan Hossain vs. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in 2015 (1) TLR 749 in which the High Court observed that teaching post of various Page - 26 of 29 disciplines in future shall not be clubbed together for the purpose of applying reservation policy. It was held by this court that teaching posts of a particular discipline shall form one cadre for the purpose of implementation of reservation policy.
[38] Counsel have also relied on the decision of this court in the case of Bijay Bhattacharya v. State of Tripura and Others reported in 2016 (1) TLR 449 where in this court in paragraph 38 of the judgment has held that there should be subject wise reservation for teaching posts. Observation of the High Court is as under:
"38. Section 4 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act also clearly provides for reservation for SC and ST in services and posts under the State. Section 4 does not talk of cadre, it talks only of posts. It may be true that all the Assistant Professors constitute to one cadre but they do not occupy the same post. True it is that the general qualification may be the same but a Professor of English must have graduated with English as a subject or with Honours in English. He must have done his M.A., M.Phil etc. in English and should have qualified his NET, SLET in the concerned subject. If he is a postgraduate, obviously he has to be a postgraduate in English. Such a person cannot teach any subject other than English. He cannot be posted in any other department and, therefore, we are of the view that if reservation is not made subject-wise, it will lead to incongruous situations. Even in the State of Tripura, we find that certain departments are filled up by reserved category candidates and in certain departments there are hardly any candidates belong to the SC or ST. Even the stand of the State is that in science subjects it is very difficult to find ST candidates and most of the ST candidates are mainly teaching general subjects in the field of Arts and they are very few in the science subjects."
[39] Having relied on the decisions aforesaid, counsel appearing for the petitioners have most emphatically contended that clearly in this case reservation was applied treating the post of Assistant Professor as one cadre and no subject wise reservation was made as a result of which the Page - 27 of 29 petitioners were deprived of selection in their respective discipline. Counsel has therefore, urged for quashing the recruitment of the private respondents by allowing this appeal.
[40] Counsel appearing for the respondents including the private respondents have on the other hand contended that the petitioners having consciously taken part in the selection process can not thereafter turn around and challenge the method of selection and its outcome. In support of their contention, the counsel of the respondents have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another vs State of Bihar and others reported in 2017 4 SCC 357 where in the Apex Court after examining the earlier decisions on this issue has held that it is not open to the appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result , once they are declared to be unsuccessful. [41] Counsel contends that it is no case of the appellants that the said recruitment involved glaring illegalities in the procedure. Counsel therefore, argues that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another ( supra), will apply in this case and the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process after participating in the process and being unsuccessful. Counsel relied on paragraph 21 of the said judgment which reads as under :
"21. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench can not held to be in error in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result, once they were declared to be unsuccessful............"
Page - 28 of 29 [42] Counsel of the respondents had also relied on an earlier decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others vs Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Others reported in 2015 11 SCC 493 where in the Apex Court had laid down the same ratio that either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted. In the case before the Apex Court the appellants challenged the recruitment process only when they found themselves to be unsuccessful in the interview which was not accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the later case of Ashok Kumar and Another (supra) the Apex Court reiterated the law enunciated in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others (supra).
[43] Apparently, in both of the appeals before us the appellants were fully aware of the methodology of selection. Having applied for the post they had also participated in the interview and after they found themselves unsuccessful in the interview they challenged the selection process on the ground that subject wise reservation policy was not followed and more importantly neither the UGC regulations nor the NCTE guidelines were followed. They also challenged the recruitment on the ground that the interview board was not constituted properly. On the question of subject wise reservation learned Single Judge held that even though the State- respondents owed an obligation to earmark the post following the statutory roaster before-hand but in the writ petition no Page - 29 of 29 averments were made by the petitioner that the adjustment of reservation in terms of merit followed by TPSC had exposed the petitioners to prejudice. The learned Single Judge had discarded other challenges of the petitioners on the ground that being fully aware of the method of selection they participated in the selection process and therefore, they were estopped to question the methodology of selection after they came out to be unsuccessful in interview.
[44] Having considered the materials placed before us and the submissions made by the counsel of the parties we find no reason to disagree with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, both the appeals stand dismissed.
In terms of the above the case is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ paritosh