RAJU NATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the state-respondents. None appears for the private respondents despite due notice from this court.

(2.) These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.134 of 2015 Sri Raju Nath and Ors. v. the State of Tripura and Ors. and W.P.(C) No.135 of 2015 Sri Amir Chandra Nama and Ors. v. the State of Tripura and Ors. are combined for disposal by a common judgment and order as these writ petitions are set in an identical facts. That apart, in both the writ petitions, the reliefs are common viz. to set aside the Revised Employment Policy published under No.F.1(4)- GA(P&T)99 dated 26.015.2012012 Anexure-3 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.135 of 2015. Further, the petitioners have urged this court to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them in the post of Pharmacist Allopathy. from the date when the private respondents No.3 to 10 in W.P.(C) No.134 of 2015 and the private respondents No.3 to 14 in W.P(C) No.135 of 2015 were appointed.

(3.) The facts, essential to adjudicate the challenge, may be introduced in brief, at the outset. There is no dispute that the respondent No.2 issued the notification dated 30.10.2013 for holding walk-in-interview for filling up of various posts under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. Serial No.5 of the notification is concerned with the vacancies for the post of Pharmacist Allopathy. There were 73 posts. Out of which, 7 posts were reserved for SC candidates, 53 posts were reserved for ST candidate and 13 posts were reserved for UR category candidates. In the said notification, the age limit including the eligibility criteria for the candidates were provided. Even the date of interview was notified. After the interviews which were held on 18.11.2013 and 19.11.2013, the respondent No.2 declared the panel of the selected candidates. The private respondents got selected but the petitioners were not. According to the petitioners, the walk-in-interview was supposed to be conducted in terms of the Revised Employment Policy as notified by the memorandum dated 26.05.2012 read with the corrigendum dated 02.06.2012.