Tripura High Court
Dr. Sandip Saha vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Ors on 7 November, 2022
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No. 906 of 2022
Dr. Sandip Saha
......Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura and 3 Ors.
......Respondents
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 07/11/2022 Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TPSC.
The petitioner has sought for following reliefs:
"(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to compute afresh the API score of the Petitioner after taking into account Teaching Experience & Award of the Petitioner, by giving & adding 10 marks & 2 marks (in total 12 marks) respectively to the Petitioner.
(ii)Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing & cancelling the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, constituted by the TPSC, for the subject of Physical Page 2 of 3 Education in pursuance with the Advertisement No-08/2022, so far the API score of the Petitioner is concerned & to compute the API score of the Petitioner after taking into account Teaching Experience & Award of the Petitioner & thereafter to include the name of the Petitioner in the list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (UR), Govt. General Degree College in Physical Education.
(iii) Pass an interim order directing the Respondent TPSC to take interview of the Petitioner to be held on 01.11.2022, for the post of Assistant Professor (UR), Govt. General Degree College) in Physical Education in pursuance with Advt. No-
08/2022, issued by the TPSC, or in the alternative by an interim order, the Respondents may be restrained by the Hon'ble High Court from holding the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (UR), Govt. General Degree College) in Physical Education, on 01.11.2022, till disposal of instant writ petition.
(iv) Make the rules absolute,
(v) Call for records."
The petitioner being an Assistant Professor at present has applied for the post of Assistant Professor(UR), Physical Education in Govt. General Degree College in response to Advt. No-08/2022 dated 24.08.2022. As per rules, he is entitled to 10 marks for Teaching Experience. His grievance is that his score against Academic Performance Index (for short, "API") has not been added by the Scrutiny Committee for recommending his name to appear in the selection process and for that reason he could not be short-listed for such post.
The petitioner to substantiate his teaching experience has placed his appointment letter under different Degree Colleges wherein his monthly salary as per UGC norms has been indicated, Page 3 of 3 but, while short-listing the names of the candidates, the API scores has not been added.
The petitioner filed representation to the authority concerned, but that was also not considered. Hence, this writ petition.
During the course of hearing, Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TPSC has raised a question that the petitioner has not submitted the proof that he has been receiving salary as indicated in the appointment letter.
This Court has earlier directed the petitioner to produce the salary certificate of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has produced his salary certificates furnishing the copy of these certificates to Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TPSC.
Mr. Datta, learned counsel after perusing those salary certificates has fairly submitted that the marks against API i.e. 10 marks should be included with the total marks awarded by Scrutiny Committee, that is, which, if added, would be 83 instead of 73.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It is directed that the TPSC shall add 10 marks as API score of the petitioner and short-list him so that he can appear in the selection process. It is also directed that TPSC would take interview of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed.
JUDGE Snigdha