Tripura High Court
Viral Pravin Maru (39) vs Secretary/Director Of Health And on 18 August, 2023
Page 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.476/2023
Viral Pravin Maru (39), Son of Mr. Pravin Vasanji Maru, Resident of 66
Dr. 1603, Charni Road East, P.O.
Fanaswadi, Leelatara Building 16h floor. flat No.
Mumbai GPO fort, P.S.-LT Marg, Mumbai, PIN-400002. .Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Secretary/Director of Health and
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by Secretariat Complex, P.0.
Family Welfare Department having its office New
Secretariat, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN- 7990 10.
Having its office
2. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department,
West Tripura, PIN
New Secretariat Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, Agartala,
799010.
3. The Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Having his office at
Health Directorate Building, 2nd Floor, Pandit J.N. Complex, Agartala, PIN
799006.
4. Agartala Government Dental College and IGM Hospital, represented by the
Dean/Principal, having his office at Agartala Government Dental College and
IGM Hospital, IGM Chowmuhani, Akhaura Road, Agartala-79900 1.
5. The Dean/Principal, Agartala Government Dental College and 1GM
Hospital, IGM Chowmuhani, Akhaura Road, Agartala-799001.
6. Tripura Public Service Commission, Represented by the Chairman, Tripura
Public Service Commission, having his office at Near OldSecretariat Complex,
Akhaura Road, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799001.
7. The Chairman, Tripura Public Service Commission, having his office at Near
OldSecretariat Complex, Akhaura Road, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799001.
8. The Member(s), Tripura Public Service Commission, having his office at
Near Old Secretariat Complex, Akhaura Road, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799001.
9. The Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission, having his office at Near
OldSecretariat Complex, Akhaura Road, Agartala, Tripura,
Pin-799001.
10. The Under Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission, having his
at Near Old Secretariat Complex, Akhaura Road, office
799001.
Agartala, Tripura, Pin
..Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar
Lodh,
Mr. D.Debnath, Advocate,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay
Advocate.
Bhattacharya,
Mr. Raju Datta,
Advocate.
G.A.,
Page 2 of 10
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH Date of hearing and judgment: 18th August, 2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Tripura Public Service Commission.
2. Petitioner submitted Online application on 18.06.2023 under advertisement No.05/2023 dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Tripura Public Service Commission, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as TPSC), i.e. before the cutoff date and time, i.e. 5.30 p.m. on 19.06.2023 for the post of Assistant Professor in Paediatric & Preventive Dentistry in Agartala Government Dental College and IGM Hospital, Agartala. He also sent the hard copies of the application and other relevant documents on 19.06.2023 through Inland Speed Post. As per the advertisement (Annexure-1) at paragraph-2 the following documents were supposed to be submitted in hard copies along with the application in hard copy by 23.06.2023:
nCandidates are required to submit self attested copy of certificates in support of their claims regarding Age, Educational Qualifications Madhyamik onwards (all mark sheets and certificates), Attempt Certificate of BDS, PG (MDS/DNB), Registration Certificate from the appropriate authority, Resident Permanent Certificate/Citizenship Certificate, Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Experience Certificates, API score (as per Scheduled Schedule-VI) and others, if any."Page 3 of 10
Annexure-3 at page-39 of the writ petition is the Tracking report Office on of Speed Post which shows that the item reached Agartala Head Post
20.06.2023 but it was delivered only on 28.06.2023, i.e. after the cutoff date of 23.06.2023 for submission of hard copies. Meanwhile, before the expiry of the cutoff date for submission of hard copies of the application along with the prescribed mandatory documents, i.e. 23.06.2023 the respondents-TPSC issued a notification bearing No.F.11(26-41)-Rectt./TPSC/2023 on 21.06.2023 (Annexure-4) which allowed submission of attempt certificate and up-to-date registration certificate by the candidates till 30.06.2023 by 5.30 p.m., failing which the Scrutiny Committee would take a decision ex parte. Since the application in hard copy and documents submitted by the petitioner through Speed Post reached on 28.06.2023, petitioner was treated as ineligible and his application was not subjected to serutiny. Therefore, petitioner approached this Court in the present writ petition.
3. Petitioner apprehended that the extension of time for submiting only two documents, i.e. attempt certificate and up-to-date registration certificate apart from other certificates which were required to be submitted in hard copy as per paragraph-2 of the advertisement was done to favour few selected persons only. Petitioner's contention is that the TPSC even before the expiry of the cutoff date, i.e. 23.06.2023 for submitting application through hard copy undertook scrutiny of the applications received by it and on 2106.2023, i.e. 2(two) days betore the expiry of the cutoff date chose to issue a corrigendum to favour few persons.
Page 4 of 10for the petitioner, has also 4 Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel submitted by candidates contended that if the hard copy of the applications other documents, there was after 21.06.2023 suffered from shortfall of certain 21.06.2023 for submitting hard no reason why the TPSC extended time on and up-to-date copies of only two documents, i.e. attempt certificate registration certificate by 30.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the TPSC has not adhered to uniform and transparent yardstick in entertaining and scrutinizing applications of eligible persons. The delay on the part of the Postal Department is not attributable to the petitioner since his application had reached the Agartala Office of the Postal Department on 20.06.2023 itself and took 8(eight) days' time for being finally delivered in the Office of the TPsC, i.e. beyond the cutoff date of 23.06.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the recruitment exercise has suffered from lack of transparency and application of fair standard and uniform yardsticks in respect of allthe candidates. Therefore, the impugned recruitment exercise is to be interfered and the respondents-TPSC should be directed to entertain the application of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons for giving them a fair opportunity to compete.
5. When the matter was taken up on the first date, i.e. 01.08.2023, the respondents were asked to file counter affidavit. Respondents No.6 to 10 being the TPSC and its officials have filed a counter affidavit. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the respondents-TPSC, has drawn the attention of this Cout to the averments made in the counter affidavit and in particular.
paragraphs-4, 5 & 6. It is submitted that the two documents, i.e. the attempt Page 5 of 10 are those documents which are certificate and up-to-date registration certificate is no bar on the Commission to necessary for computation of API score. There documents submitted in hard copy undertake scrutiny of the applications and advertisement relates to filling up before the cutoff date, i.e. 23.06.2023. The including the one in which the 18(eighteen) posts in 9(nine) disciplines documents reveals that some of the petitioner is interested. The scrutiny of the documents. This extension of time was candidates did not furnish these two hard copy with documents reached granted to candidates whose application in covering all disciplines and 18 the Commission bythe cutoff date 23.06.2023 copy with documents have been posts. No candidate whose application in hard Court with a grievance that their received by 23.06.2023 has approached this despite all mandatory applications have not been subjected to scrutiny pointed out that about 62 such documents supplied in hard copy. It is also the cutoff date. These applications in hard copies were received after applicants were applications were, therefore, not subjected to scrutiny as such petitioner that candidates from held to be ineligible. The apprehension of the appearing from the State outside States have been ousted to favour candidates from various States of Tripura is also unfounded since about 66 applicants to submit their including Jammu & Kashmir and Karnataka had been able been applications within the cutoff date of 2.3.06.2023. Their applications have serutinized and many of them who were found eligible were also called for interview.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-TPSC has drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case Page 6 of 10 India reported in (1994) 6SCC 651 and in the of Tata Cellular vrs. Union of Ors.
Ors. Vrs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi & 344 which have been relied upon in a recent reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the decision of this Court rendered by (Justice Aparesh Kr. Singh) in the case of Dr. Sandeep Roy Chief Justice Tripura Public Service Comnmission & others [WP(C) No.966 of Sarkar vrs.
the the reasoning and observations of 2022]. He has, in particular, relied upon thesaid judgment. It is submitted that the Court in paragraphs-11, 14 and 15 of in the decisions of the expert Apex Court has cautioned interference High Courts. It is submitted that recruitment bodies in judicial review by the unless the decision of the recruitment body the Apex Court has clearly held that mala fide, no interference should be is patently arbitrary and suffers from petitioner has not been able to establish made. He, therefore, submits that the against the TPSC in the recruitment any case of arbitrariness or mala fide 9(nine) disciplines in the exercise conducted for filling up various posts in based on imaginary Medical Colleges of the State. As such, the writ petition to be dismissed apprehension and without any enforceable legal right is fit been established by the since no case of arbitrariness or mala fides has petitioner.
Ihave considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
7. documents placed parties at length and gone through the pleadings and the have been dealt with in the from record. The narration of facts and events hereunder, as they are not in foregoing paragraphs which are not being repeated Annexure-1, the TPSC dispute. Under the advertisement dated 30.05.2023 at Page 7 of 10 Assistant Professor in Agartala has undertaken an exercise to fill up 18 posts of the Health & Government Dental College & IGM Hospital. Agartala under advertisement Family Welfare Department., Government of Tripura. The paragraph-2 quoted required the applicants to submit the documents as at along with the printed hereinabove in hard copies by 23.06.2023 (5.30 p.m.) candidature shall be treated as copy of Online application, failing which the application thereafter. It cancelled and the Commission would not entertain any had made Online application on is not in dispute that though the petitioner documents did not 18.06.2023, the hard copy of the application along with the deadline, i.e. 5.30 p.m. on reach the Office of the Commission by the report of Speed Post at 23.06.2023. It has been pointed out from the Tracking the item had reached the Annexure-3, page-39 of the writ petition that though same was delivered only on Agartala Office of the Postal Department but the 28.06.2023, i.e. after the cutoff date.
hard copy 8 It is not the case of the petitioner that applications in date of 23.06.2023 have been with documents received after the cutoff allowed to participate in the entertained by the TPSC and candidates have been upon Annexure-4, recruitment exercise. Petitioner's grievance hinges which the Commission Corrigendum/ Notification dated 21.06.2023, by documents, i.e. attempt certificate extended the time limit for furnishing two shortfall in certificate which were found to be in and up-to-date registration 30.06.2023 (5.30 p.m.) in hard copies. some of the applications received by through the counter affidavit sought to The Commission has in their averments submit these two documents only as they justify the extension of time limit to Page 8 of 10 API score and as such, mandatory in were necessary for computation of the respondents-TPSC that the process of scrutiny of nature. lt is the stand of the cutoff date, i.e. 23.06.2023 is not documents received in hard copy before the respondents-TPSC appears to have legally impermissible. This plea of the has to undertake scrutiny of several sound basis as the recruiting body respect of any such recruitment documents and applications received in process.
exercise in order to expedite the recruitment no candidate who had submitted his
9. It is also evident that forward date of 23.06.2023 has come application in hard copy by the cutoff has not been entertained and treated with agrievance that his application time till 30.06.2023 has not been ineligible or that the benefit of extension of the respondents-TPSC that about granted to them. It appears from the stand of like Jammu & Kashmir and Karnataka 66 such candidates from far-off States documents by the cutoff also had submitted their applications in hard copy with and have been date of 23.06.2023 and they have been subjected to scrutiny called to interview on being found eligible.
10. It is also evident from the counter affidavit of the respondents that it is not only the petitioner whose application in hard copy along with documents reached after the cutoff date of 23.06.2023 but there were 62 such applicants whose applications reached after the cutoff date 23.06.2023 and all Commission of them were treated as ineligible. As such, on the one hand, the cannot be faulted for treating applications received after 23.06.2023 as ineligible as no extension of time for submitting of hard copies of application with documents beyond 23.06.2023 was granted nor any application received Page 9 of 10 in hard copy after 23.06.2023 were entertained by the Commission for scrutiny and interview. Therefore, on the first plank, since the petitioner's application had reached on 28.06.2023, the decision of the recruiting body to treat that application as ineligible cannot be found fault with. It, therefore, also appeals to the Court that extension of time on 21.06.2023 for submitting two the certificates which were mandatory for computation of API score to all recruitment candidates covering 9 disciplines and 18 posts in total in the said Petitioner has also exercise was not actuated by malice to favour few persons.
candidate has been favoured not been able to show that any individual of these two selectively on account of extension of time for submission documents in hard copy by 30.06.2023.
11. The judgments of the Apex Court on the issue of interference in judicial review in the decision of recruitment body are by now well settled. In the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) the Apex Court has at paragraphs-64 to 69 laid down the broad parameters under which the Writ Court should not interfere. Only on the grounds of mala fide or palpable arbitrariness, interference can be made in such exercise. The wisdom of the recruiting body to fix a cutoff date cannot be questioned unless they are suffering from arbitrariness or are intended to favour few selected persons. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of any such mala fide or ex facie arbitrariness in the decision of the recruiting body to adhere to the cutoff dates i.e. 23.06.2023 for submission of hard copies of applications with documents and 30.06.2023 i.e. the extension of time or submission of two mandatory Page 10 of 10 documernts, i.e. attempt certificate and up-to-date registration certificate by the applicants which are necessary for computation of API score.
reasons
12. As such, on acomprehensive analysis of the facts, the Court, this recorded and the legal position settled in this regard by the Apex Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.
of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ Pulak Date: 2023.08.23 PULAK BANIK 17:16:42 +05'30'