SAMIR CHANDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the letters dated 15.11.2016 and 10.07.2018 [Annexures-5 & 13 respectively to the writ petition]. That apart, a writ of mandamus has been urged for directing the respondents to revoke/rescind those letters dated 15.11.2016 and 10.07.2018 and also to convene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] without taking aid of Rule 9 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 in strict conformity with the judgment dated 09.04.2015, the order dated 27.07.2015 [Anneuxre-3 to the writ petition], the order dated 13.02.2017 [Anneuxre-8 to the writ petition], the memorandum dated 01.04.2017 [Anneuxre-10 to the writ petition] and the order dated 17.05.2018 [Anneuxre-11 to the writ petition]. It has been further urged to restrain the respondents on acting on the letters dated 15.11.2016 and 10.07.2018 [Anneuxres-5 & 13 respectively to the writ petition].

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that by the judgment and order dated 09.04.2015 delivered in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2018, two provisos of Rule 9(2) of Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 was read down by the said judgment dated 09.04.2015. Against the said judgment, the respondents with intent to file appeal preferred Special Leave Petition for leave to appeal being SLP(C) No.19765-19767 of 2015. The said proceeding is still pending in the apex court. But the main writ petition from which the reference to the Full Bench was generated has been disposed of. As per practice, after the DPC meeting the minutes were forwarded to the High Court of Tripura following the procedure to have the administrative approval for appointment on promotion to the various posts of the subordinate judiciary. The decision of the Monitoring Committee is communicated to the District Judges. A reference has also been made by the petitioners to the memorandum dated 14.12.2016 in the form of advisory stating that the DPC might be convened as per the reservation policy of the State of Tripura that existed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment dated 09.04.2015, subject to the outcome of the said SLP. According to the petitioner, for issuance of the memorandum dated 14.12.2016, two contempt petitions were filed being CONMP.(C) No. 11 of 2017 and CONMP.(C) No. 13 of 2017 emerging from the said SLP. Those cases were taken up for consideration on 27.03.2017. Leave was granted and notice was issued upon the respondents in those contempt proceedings. Subsequently, in view of those contempt proceedings, as stated by the petitioners, the memorandum dated 01.04.2017 was issued stalling the process of promotion in the State of Tripura till disposal of those contempt cases but on 17.05.2018, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued a memorandum dated 15.06.2018 in consonance with the memorandum dated 15.06.2018 which was issued advising the State Governments to take necessary steps in accordance with the order dated 17.05.2018.

(3.) The petitioners are serving as the ministerial staffs in the subordinate judiciary and they have challenged the decision of the High Court in respect of the resolution taken by the DPC as reflected in the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 19th and 20th October, 2016 [Anenxure-5 to the writ petition] and one communication dated 10.07.2018 written by the then District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura Judicial District, Belonia indicated that the DPC could not decide all agenda scheduled to be discussed in the meeting held on 8th July, 2018 due to paucity of time and hence, the High Court has been urged to grant to hold further meeting on 15.07.2018. According to the petitioners, the decision of the High Court by which the petitioners appear to be agitated reads as follows: