AMARESH DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the private-respondents.

(2.) All these writ petitions being WP(C)No.512 of 2017 [Amaresh Debnath v. State of Tripura and Others], WP(C)No.513 of 2017 [Ranjit Debnath v. State of Tripura and Others] and WP(C)No.514 of 2017 [Uttam Kumar Datta v. State of Tripura and Others] are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the reliefs sought in those writ petitions are common and the related facts are closely resembling, however, with little variation which are not very significant so far the materials for determining the controversy as raised in this writ petition.

(3.) The writ petitioners were appointed as Havilder (GD) according to the petitioners, by direct recruitment, w.e.f. 15.01.2000. The private respondents No.5 to 8 were also appointed as Havilder (GD) on the basis of direct recruitment subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. The respondents No.5 to 8 respectively joined in the post of Havilder (GD) w.e.f. 06.06.2000, 05.06.2000, 09.06.2000 and 27.06.2000. Thus, they are junior in the service and they cannot be shown as senior to the writ petitioners. By way of amendment carried out in the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that from the reply filed by the official-respondents it has transpired that prior to the seniority list dated 17.01.2009 was published, there were three seniority lists dated 28.03.2003, 09.03.2005 and 19.09.2007 were issued and those seniority lists are at Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively to the reply filed by the official-respondents. The petitioners have asserted that they were never communicated the tentative seniority lists. Hence, in absence of circulation of the tentative seniority lists to the petitioners, the publication of the seniority lists [Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 to the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 4] violates the principle of natural justice and the respondents No.1 to 4 ought not have acted thereon. That apart, in absence of the required training, the private-respondents would have no right to be placed in the seniority list. According to the petitioners, the private-respondents had undergone the training for the period as shown below: