Tripura High Court
Smt. Maitri Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Tripura on 6 March, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No. 319 of 2016
Smt. Maitri Bhattacharjee,
daughter of Sri Subrata Bhattacharjee,
wife of Sri Arun Kumar Bhattacharjee,
resident of Kumari Tilla, P.O. Abhoynagar,
Agartala, West Tripura
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission, Government of Tripura
3. State Health and Family Welfare Society,
Revised National Tubercolosis Control Program (RNTCP),
Tripura, represented by the State Programme Officer,
TB Association of Tripura Building, opposite to IGM Hospital,
(Old Gate), P.O. Agartala, West Tripura
4. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
5. Sri Santanu Chakraborty,
son of Ranjit Chakraborty, resident of Sonamura Chowmuhani
P.O. R.K. Pur, Gomati, Tripura
... Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate
For respondent no 1 to 3 : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl. GA
For respondent no 4 : Mr. H. Deb, ASG
For respondent no 5 : Mr. S.Bhattacharji, Legal Aid Counsel
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment and Order : 06.03.2017.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. H. Deb, learned ASG appearing for the respondent No.4 and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for respondent no. 5. W.P.(C) No. 319 of 2016 2
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the engagement of the respondent No.5 in the post of Data Entry Operator in the State TB Cell. There is no dispute that the State Programme Officer, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program had published an advertisement dated 01.09.2015 [Annexure A to the writ petition] seeking application from the eligible person for engagement as Data Entry Operator in the State TB Cell on contract basis at a fixed pay for 1(one) year which may however be extended on satisfactory performance till the project subsists. This is also not disputed that both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were found eligible for applying for the said post and they were, therefore, asked to appear in the written test for short listing the meritorious candidates. Accordingly both the petitioner and the respondent No.5, found their place in the shortlist for purpose of interview for final selection. From the notification dated 28.04.2016 [Annexure D to the writ petition] the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.5 has been selected for the said post of Data Entry Operator in the TB Cell. Hence, she filed the writ petition challenging the said selection and subsequent engagement as according to her on the basis of the "information from the reliable source" she has come to know that she stood first in the written test and she was also the topper in the interview. But denying her the engagement the respondent no.5 has been engaged.
3. The respondents No. 1,2 and 3 and the respondent No.5 filed their reply separately. The respondents No. 2 and 3 in their reply has categorically stated that as per guidelines prescribed by the National Health Mission, Tripura, the marks obtained by the candidates on the Preliminary Competency Assessment test, the respondent No.5 was found to have secured more marks than the petitioner. In this regard W.P.(C) No. 319 of 2016 3 they have produced the tabulation sheet of the marks obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No.5. It appears therefrom that the petitioner‟s name appears in serial No.1 and she secured „17‟ and the name of the respondent No.5 appears in serial No.5 and he secured „22‟. Both of them were found eligible for appearing before the viva-voce for considering their skill, efficiency, ability, personality, stamina etc. The respondents No.2 and 3 have further averred in their reply that "Smt. Maitri Bhattacharji, the petitioner of the writ petition had poor performance in the interview Board". The respondent No.5 by filing the reply has categorically claimed that he had assessed to have performed better than the petitioner.
4. From the score-sheet of the viva-voce, it appears that the petitioner got „12‟ whereas the respondent No.5 had secured „17‟. The petitioner after receipt of the reply filed by the respondent No.2 and 3 filed her rejoinder. In paragraph 4 of the said rejoinder, the petitioner has asserted that "the petitioner had learnt that even in the viva-voce she had stood first and intentionally the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had not published in the website the marks obtained by each candidate. In the overall process of selection to the post of Data Entry Operator, the respondents had not maintained transparency and fairness in the overall process of selection and that is the reason, in the counter affidavit also the merit list of viva-voce examination has not been annexed and even the marks scored by the candidates had not been stated".
5. On the face if such statement, this court has persuaded production of the original score-sheet of the viva-voce, a copy of which has been annexed by the respondent No. 5 with his reply, the respondent no 5 has claimed to have collected the same by applying to the competent authority and such application of his is available at Annexure-R-4. There is no rejoinder against the reply filed by the W.P.(C) No. 319 of 2016 4 respondent No.5. This matter has been taken up for final disposal today at the insistence of Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. From such insistence, this court has assumed that the petitioner has decided not to file any rejoinder against the reply filed by the respondent No.5.
6. The records speak for themselves. It is apparent therefore that the respondent No. 5 made better performance and his merit was found comparatively better than the petitioner. Thus, this court does not find any infirmity in the process. As such the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. Before parting it needs to be observed that if it is found that the petitioner‟s position in the panel is as such and the panel is still subsisting, the respondents may consider the engagement of the petitioner in the said post as it has been stated at the bar that the respondent No.5 has already left the job.
JUDGE Saikat W.P.(C) No. 319 of 2016