Tripura High Court
Shri Bidhan Ch. Das vs The State Of Tripura on 8 August, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.1370 OF 2016
Shri Bidhan Ch. Das,
son of Late Anil Chandra Das,
Vill. Rajnagar, P.O. R.K. Pur,
Sub-Division-Udaipur,
District-Gomati.
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura in the
Tribal Rehabilitation in Plantation &
Primitive Group Programme, having its office at
New Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban,
District-West Tripura, Agartala.
2. The Director,
TRP&PTG,
Government of Tripura, having its office at
Opposite to Circuit House,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
3. The Senior Deputy Magistrate(Head of Office),
office of the District Magistrate & Collector,
Gomati District.
4. The Joint Transport Commissioner,
Government of Tripura,
Office of the Joint Transport Commissioner,
P.O. Agartala, District-West Tripura.
............ Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate
Mr. K. Roy, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. A.S. Lodh, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing & delivery of : 08.08.2017
judgment and order
Whether Fit for Reporting : Yes No
√
WP(C) NO.1370 OF 2016 Page 1 of 5
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. Somik Deb and Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this Court for directing the respondents to appoint him to the post of Driver, Group-C on promotion against the 30% quota in terms of the notification dated 20.06.2013(Annexure-R/7 to the reply filed by the respondents). Additionally, the petitioner has urged that the respondents be directed to pay the petitioner arrear pay and allowances in the post of Driver since he has been deprived of the due pay for his discharging the duties and responsibilities as the driver.
3. The facts are mostly admitted in this case. The petitioner was initially appointed as the Cook-cum-Attendant-cum- Chowkider(Group-D) by the Memorandum dated 23.12.2008. But it transpires from the records that he was engaged or deputed for driving the Government vehicles. That apart, his name was recommended for taking part in the test/interview for promotion to the post of Driver, Grade-III by the communication dated 31.10.2009(part of Annexure-B to the writ petition). In the said communication dated 31.10.2009, it had been recorded that the petitioner though was a Group-D employee but he was having the valid driving license. All relevant information in respect of the petitioner has been provided along with the said communication WP(C) NO.1370 OF 2016 Page 2 of 5 dated 31.10.2009 in the format provided by the Government memorandum. In the said format, the petitioner has been shown as 'driving the vehicles for ten years'.
4. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has successfully passed the test/interview, as would be apparent from the communication dated 29.12.2015(Annexure-C to the writ petition).
5. It transpires further that in the merit panel, the petitioner's position is at No.3 and his year of engagement has been shown in the year 1991 as the casual employee. As stated, thereafter he has been regularized in a Group-D post. It is further apparent from the format containing the information that the petitioner had the valid driving license for driving LMV cab. Even though in the petition, the appointments of the persons who have been recruited directly as the drivers under various departments by the Memorandum dated 26.08.2015(Annexure-D to the writ petition) are challenged, but Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will not insist that prayer. Therefore, this Court may not examine that aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the said relief as prayed in this writ petition stands abandoned.
6. It transpires from the records that the petitioner filed representation as well as the demand notice to the Director of TRP & PGP on 19.09.2015 and 26.10.2016 respectively, but without any positive yield whatsoever.
WP(C) NO.1370 OF 2016 Page 3 of 5
7. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the respondents are alive of the predicament of the persons who are driving the vehicles though they are appointed substantially in the Group-D posts. Towards alleviation, a policy has been adopted and the said policy is reflected in the Memorandum dated 20.06.2013. The said policy is being implemented earnestly by the Government. It has also not been denied by Ms. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. that the petitioner has successfully come through the test plus interview and he would be appointed as and when the vacancy would be available.
8. Having referred to the Roster Inspection Report(Annexure-R/8 to the counter affidavit), Ms. Lodh has contended that at present there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner.
9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondents shall appoint the petitioner in the post of the Driver as and when a vacancy is available in terms of the merit panel as available at page 24 of the writ petition. Without exhausting that panel, no other appointment under the said 30% quota shall be made from any other fresh panel.
10. This Court has decided similarly in Tapan Chandra Lodh & Ors. v. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in (2015) 2 TLR 637 by observing that once a candidate is found suitable then there is no question of a merit list being prepared because they are WP(C) NO.1370 OF 2016 Page 4 of 5 due to be promoted in the order of the seniority in the subordinate grade. It is to be clarified that the seniority in terms of the said decision has to be construed as the seniority amongst the persons who have qualified the test. In another decision in Nani Gopal Chakraborty alias Sannyashi v. State of Tripura & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 TLR 359, this Court had an occasion to direct the respondents for making recommendation and to consider the promotion of the petitioner having due regard to the seniority position as stated above.
11. In this context, the respondents are directed to verify the vacancy and if any vacancy is available under the 30% quota the petitioner shall be considered for promotion. The fresh assessment regarding availability of the vacancy, shall be made within a period of two months from the date when the petitioner shall file a copy of this order and thereafter the appropriate action in terms of the observation made above shall be taken. In the event of availability of the vacancy, the DPC shall be reconvened as early as possible at any rate not beyond the six months from the date of availability of the vacancy.
12. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE WP(C) NO.1370 OF 2016 Page 5 of 5