AMIT KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise in common background. Both the petitioners have challenged the selection process for the post of Fireman, Group-C post.

(2.) Facts, in brief, may be noted. Sri Amit Kumar Das, petitioner of W.P. (C) No.961 of 2018 belongs to a Scheduled Castes category. The State Government had issued an advertisement on 21.05.2015 for selection to the post of Fireman. Under this advertisement, the Government had notified 68 vacancies for Scheduled Caste candidates and 179 vacancies for the General category candidates. The minimum educational qualifications required were Madhyamik or equivalent examination passed. The petitioner was possessing necessary educational qualifications. He, therefore, applied for the post in question. The selection process consisted of an endurance test followed by written examination of 30 marks and oral interview of 20 marks. The petitioner cleared the endurance test and appeared in the written examination. He was also orally interviewed. The respondents did not offer an appointment to the petitioner. He thereupon made an application dated 20.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act seeking necessary information about the breakup of marks in written and oral examinations awarded to him as well as to the selected candidates. The respondents provided him the marks secured by him during such examinations but refused to provide the breakup of marks awarded to the selected candidates. The result showed that the petitioner had secured 25 out of 30 marks in the written examination but was awarded only 2 out of 20 marks in the oral interviews. The petitioner, therefore, filed the petition in which he has challenged his non-selection and prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Fireman.

(3.) The respondents have filed the affidavit-in-reply in which they were pointed out that the last selected SC candidate had secured an aggregate of 29 marks against the total of 27 marks awarded to the petitioner. He was thus not meritorious enough to secure appointment. Along with the affidavit-in-reply, the respondents have produced a list of selected candidates belonging to SC category along with the breakup of marks in written and oral interviews awarded to them. On the basis of such data, the respondents contended that petition is meritless.