Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Others vs Md. Arshad Miah And Others on 23 May, 2022
Author: Indrajit Mahanty
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, S.G. Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.308/2021
The State of Tripura and others
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Md. Arshad Miah and others
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A., Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 23/05/2022 (Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.) Heard Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-appellants and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present writ appeal has come to be filed seeking to challenge a judgment and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.497 of 2020.
Page 2 of 33. The learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment had passed the directions contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 which may be reproduced hereinbelow:
"4. In my opinion, the court cannot direct the State authority to fill up the left out vacancies. It is absolutely within the domain of the State authorities whether they want to fill up the vacancies or not. A candidate who has been selected but, not recommended for appointment has no accrued right to claim appointment out of that selected list. The petitioners have no grievance against the selection of the candidates who were appointed by this time under the State- respondents. The petitioners also expect that if the remaining vacant posts are filled up, their names may be considered for recommendation.
5. As I have said earlier, this court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State-authorities to fill up the vacancies. I reiterate that it is within the ambit of the State-authorities itself.
6. In view of that, I find no merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions stands dismissed. However, I direct that if in future the vacancies are filled up, the State-authorities may consider the names of the petitioners subject to their eligibility and other criteria in accordance with law."
4. In other words, even though the writ petition of the private writ petitioners (respondents herein) came to be dismissed, the State have still Page 3 of 3 preferred an appeal purportedly since the learned Single Judge made a further direction after dismissing the writ petition to the effect that if in the future the vacancies are filled up by the State-authorities, they may consider the names of the petitioners subject to their eligibility and other criteria in accordance with law.
5. The aforesaid observation has sought to be challenged in the present appeal. We find no reason for justifying the appeal inasmuch as the original writ petitioners in any event could apply for any future vacancy and only if they meet the requirements of law and standard set in that examination, would they be considered eligible for appointment.
6. Therefore, we find no ambiguity or justification in filing of the present appeal. Hence, the same stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ Pulak