Tripura High Court
Sri Nirmal Das vs The State Of Tripura on 10 January, 2017
Author: S.C. Das
Bench: S.C. Das
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)
WP(C) No. 319 of 2014
Sri Nirmal Das,
Son of Late Niranjan Das,
Resident of Kashipur,
Agartala, P.O. Resham bagan,
PIN-799008, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
........... Petitioner.
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Secretary/
Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala,
District-West Tripura,
PIN-799006.
2. The Director,
National Rural Health Mission
(for short NRHM),
3. The Director of Health Services,
Government of Tripura,
P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti,
Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN-799006.
4. Chairman cum Chief Medical Officer,
District Health & Family Welfare Society,
Unakoti Tripura, Kailashahar.
5. The Chief Medical Officer,
Unakoti Tripura, Kailashahar.
6. Sri Suman Paul,
Son of Sri Samir Kanata Paul,
Adarshapalli, College Tilla,
Agartala, Tripura West.
.......... Respondents.
W.P.(C) No.319 of 2014 Page 1 of 6
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. DAS Advocates for the petitioner : Mr.P. Roy Barman, Mr.D.C.Saha, Mr.K.Nath, Advocates for respondents : Mr. J. Majumder, Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & order : 10.01.2017.
Whether Fit for Reporting : No.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Learned counsel, Mr. D.K.Biswas appearing for the respondent No.6 submits that respondent No.6 did not file any counter affidavit and not interested with the writ petition since he has already resigned from the post.
2. The petitioner was working as a Sub-Divisional Accountant cum Data Assistant in the National Rural Health Mission (for short 'NRHM') under the Director, NRHM, attached with the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Unakoti District.
3. Respondent No.4 made an advertisement on 20.11.2012 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) to fill up certain posts under the NRHM, Unakoti Tripura and one of the post was District Accounts Manager for which the prescribed qualification was -
W.P.(C) No.319 of 2014 Page 2 of 6
"Post Graduate degree in commerce with accountancy as a subject. A minimum experience of two years in accounting. Working knowledge and experience of popular accountancy software packages.
*One year diploma in computer application in accounting data base e.g. Tally, etc. Govt. recognized University or Institute. *Excellent oral and written communication skill in English and Bengali."
The petitioner, having all requisite qualifications, applied for the post and some other candidates also similarly applied and a walk-in-interview was conducted by the Interview Board consisting of seven members and the Board published a merit list of 17 candidates (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) on 15.12.2012. It is an admitted position that the petitioner secured first position in the interview. Pursuant to that interview, respondent No.6, Sri Suman Paul, who secured second position in the walk-in-interview, as per the merit list, was given appointment and the petitioner was not given the appointment to the post and nothing was informed to the petitioner as to why he was not given the appointment. A copy of the appointment letter dated 20.05.2014 of respondent No.6 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-P/3.
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5, inter alia, contended that there were some internal investigations in the process against the petitioner while he was working as a Data Assistant and some irregularities were found on such investigations and, therefore, he was not given the appointment as per the interview and the second man was given the appointment. It was also stated in W.P.(C) No.319 of 2014 Page 3 of 6 the counter affidavit that prima facie irregularities were established against the petitioner and the investigation was pending against him in the Office of the District Health and Family Welfare Society, Unakoti and, therefore, the appointment was not given to the petitioner. In support of that contention the respondents annexed several documents marked as Annexure- R/1 to R/6.
5. By filing rejoinder affidavit the petitioner brought on record the fact that respondent No.6, who was appointed by the Official respondents, has resigned from the post of District Accounts Manager and so, the post is lying vacant. That fact is not disputed.
6. No new selection process has been undertaken. The petitioner stood first in the walk-in-interview conducted by the Interview Board and that is not in dispute. He was denied appointment only on the ground that some investigation was going on against him in respect of his discharge of duties in the post as a Sub-Divisional Accountant cum Data Assistant. By filing rejoinder affidavit the petitioner filed Annexure-P/5, a Memo dated 29.09.2014, which shows that the petitioner's appointment as Sub-Divisional Accountant cum Data Assistant was extended till 30.09.2014 after appraisal of his works. The documents furnished on behalf of the respondents along the counter affidavit all were prior to that letter dated 29.09.2014. Admittedly, no departmental action or no criminal proceeding W.P.(C) No.319 of 2014 Page 4 of 6 was initiated against the petitioner for his having done any misconduct or criminal act while working as Sub-Divisional Accountant cum Data Assistant.
7. No doubt it is prerogative of the appointing authority as to whether after conducting an interview they should go for appointing a particular selected person or not. But while a person stood first has not been appointed, whereas, the second man has been appointed, automatically the person stood first has a right to know why he was deprived. Simply because some departmental investigation of certain facts were going on, unless some specific or direct material found to book the person, perhaps it was not proper to deprive a person simply because of some whisper here and there in the department.
8. Admittedly, the post of District Accounts Manager, Unakoti, for which the interview was conducted in the year 2012, is now lying vacant and not yet filled up. The petitioner, therefore, may immediately approach the appointing authority to consider his appointment to the post and if a representation is made to the appointing authority, they should consider the appointment of the petitioner to that post, which is lying vacant because of resignation of respondent No.6 if the petitioner is not otherwise found to be unfit for the post because of any proven misconduct or any offence committed by the petitioner which disqualified him from such appointment. This order should be complied within 30(thirty) days from today. W.P.(C) No.319 of 2014 Page 5 of 6
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of as indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE W.P.(C) No.319 of 2014 Page 6 of 6