Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Tripura High Court

Manti Karmakar vs The State Of Tripura And 4 Ors on 15 March, 2023

Author: Arindam Lodh

Bench: Arindam Lodh

                               Page 1 of 2



                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        AGARTALA

                        WP(C) No.780 of 2022

Manti Karmakar
                                                           ....Petitioner

                    Versus

The State of Tripura and 4 Ors.
                                                       ....Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. De, Addl. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 15/03/2023 Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. GA, appearing for the respondents-State.

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the respondents had issued advertisement for filling up 39 nos. of STPGT posts in the subject of Sociology. The name of the petitioner appears at serial no.39. The respondents had appointed 38 nos. of candidates. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though she was qualified but, she was not considered for appointment.

It is the case of the State-respondents that 39 nos. of posts have been filled up including one post which is reserved for UR Ex-Servicemen category.

Page 2 of 2

In view of this, the petitioner could not be selected and appointed in the post of STPGT in the subject of Sociology.

Be that as it may, this writ petition does not deserve any merit to consider the case of the petitioner. However, the respondents may consider her appointment if vacancy is available under the advertisement already issued by the respondents.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE Snigdha