Tripura High Court
Sri Sourav Datta vs District & Sessions Judge on 29 June, 2018
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.213/2018
Sri Sourav Datta, S/O. Late Sudip Datta, Resident of Bhati
Abhoynagar, Lane-2, West Para, Agartala, 799005.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.
2. Registrar General, High Court of Tripura, Khejur Bagan,
Agartala.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Biswas, Advocate, Mr. G.K. Nama, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Dhar, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI
Order
29/06/2018
The present writ petition has been filed by one of the aspirant candidate with a grievance that despite the vacancy became available on resignation being tendered by one of the selected candidate during the lifetime of the select list still his application was not considered by the authorities for appointment although his name was next in queue and placed in the order of merit.
2. The post of LDC is included in the schedule appended to the Tripura District Courts' Ministerial Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014 which came to be notified vide notification dt. 30.8.2014. Under the scheme of Rules, certain instructions have been issued to the appointing authority that candidates who qualify in the type test on computer will be Page 2 of 5 allowed to sit in the written examination followed by an interview in the ratio of 1 : 6, at the same time, a panel is to be prepared double the number of vacancies advertised even for filling up the existing and anticipated vacancies and the panel shall remain in force for a period of one year. It clearly envisaged that such anticipated vacancies which became available during the lifetime of the panel remain in force can also be filled from the panel prepared pursuant to the advertisement in reference to which the selection process was held, in the instant case pursuant to advertisement dt. 24.4.2015.
3. The petitioner in the instant case also filled his application pursuant to advertisement dt. 24.4.2015 and participated in the selection process held for the post of LDC in the open category (UR) and the Final Merit-cum-Selection list was published by the respondents dt. 11.1.2017 (Annexure-1) and in the Merit-cum- Selection list the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.100 and during the lifetime of the select list which has not been disputed by the respondents, one of the candidate namely Prabal Bhowmik who is shown at Sl. No.87 tendered his resignation on 14.11.2017 which was accepted by the respondents and thus the anticipated vacancy on acceptance of resignation which became available during the lifetime of the select list could be filled by the respondents in terms of Instruction-B appended to the Rules of 2014.
4. The petitioner submitted his application that against the anticipated vacancy which has become available on account of Page 3 of 5 acceptance of resignation within the life time of the select list at least his candidature may be considered for appointment to the post of LDC as he being the next in queue for consideration of appointment from the Merit-cum-Selection list notified by the respondents dt. 11.01.2017.
5. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that when the initial appointments were made out of the Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017, the candidate above him shown at Sl. No.99 namely Pranesh Debnath was given appointment in the open category and on acceptance of resignation of the candidate namely Prabal Bhowmik (Sl. No.87) the vacancy which became available during the lifetime of the select list, the petitioner was the first to be considered for appointment but without assigning any reason the respondents deprived him from being considered for appointment and that is the reason for which he approached this court by filing of the writ petition.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and a justification has been tendered that a decision was taken prior thereto not to make any further appointment and request of the petitioner was accordingly declined for appointment from the Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017.
7. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the anticipated vacancies can also be considered for making appointment over the vacancies advertised and in the instant case the vacancy to which the petitioner is concerned became available Page 4 of 5 on account of acceptance of resignation being tendered by one of the candidate Prabal Bhowmik (Sl. No.87) who was appointed out of the Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017 and indisputably during the lifetime of the select list the vacancy became available and the petitioner being next in the queue conferred with a legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment on the post of LDC from the Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017 prepared in reference to advertisement dt. 24.4.2015.
8. It is true that mere placement in the select list confers no indefensible right but at the same time, the petitioner certainly have a legitimate expectation of consideration for appointment against the anticipated vacancy which became available on account of acceptance of resignation during the lifetime of the select list and such vacancy can be considered indeed for appointment out of the Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017 prepared pursuant to Advertisement dt.24.04.2015 and no reason was forthcoming from the respondents to withhold the fair consideration of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC after his name being placed in the Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017 and defeated by the respondents without assigning any justification.
9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of LDC from the final Merit-cum-Selection list dt. 11.01.2017 prepared/notified in reference to advertisement dt. 24.4.2015 against the vacancy which became available on Page 5 of 5 acceptance of resignation of Pranesh Debnath. Necessary compliance be made within two months. No costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE Certificate:- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order. Pulak