TANMOY DEB Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute that the petitioner is a Medical Officer borne in Tripura Health Service, Grade-IV. As the petitioner is having M.S. in ENT, according to him, he is eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor [ENT], as would be apparent from the advertisement dtd. 25/6/2012 for the post of Assistant Professor in Agartala Government Medical College [Annexure-8 to the writ petition]. In the said advertisement, one vacancy for the post of Assistant Professor [ENT] was adverted. In terms of the said advertisement, the respondent No.7 herein was appointed on ad-hoc basis by the notification dtd. 18/9/2012 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] along with the other Assistant Professors of different disciplines. Two writ petitions being WP(C)No.532 of 2012 [Dr. Asish Debbarma v. State of Tripura and Others] and WP(C)No.534 of 2012 [Dr. Mani Ranjan Debbarma v. State of Tripura and Others] were filed inasmuch as Dr. Asis Debbarma, the petitioner in WP(C)No.532 of 2012 who was serving as the senior most tutor in the Bio-Chemistry Department of AGMC and GBP Hospital having all qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Bio- Chemistry was not selected. According to the petitioner, Dr. Asis Debbarma was supposed to get selected as ST candidate. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, he filed the writ petition challenging the appointments of the candidates who were selected and appointed [from the ST community] to the said post of Assistant Professor. The similar challenge was raised by Dr. Mani Ranjan Debbarma who filed the writ petition being WP(C)No.534 of 2012. According to those writ petitioners, the selection was grossly illegal as the reservation policy was not observed by following the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes Reservation Act, 1991. According to those petitioners, out of 34 vacancies, 10 posts ought to have been reserved for ST candidates. 8 candidates belonging to ST community were given adhoc appointment by the notification dtd. 18/9/2012. Thus, those writ petitioners had urged for directing the respondents to appoint them in the post of Assistant Professor w.e.f. 18/9/2012. Those writ petitions were decided on three questions viz.

(2.) By the common judgment dtd. 17/3/2016, those writ petitions were disposed of, holding that as they had participated in the selection process knowing fully well about the mode they cannot challenge the selection process. At the same time, it has been held that the petitioners were entitled to challenge the advertisement, selection and appointment of the private respondents as they had alleged violation of recruitment rules. On the question of violation of the reservation rules, it has been observed that the advertisement dtd. 25/6/2012 all the posts of different disciplines were clubbed together in contrast to the law decided by the apex court in State of U.P. and Others v. M.C. Chattopadhyay and Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 333. But another issue which was termed as the core issue in those writ petition was that whether the advertisement dtd. 25/6/2012 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] and the recruitment/appointment notification dtd. 18/9/2012 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition] were in violation of the recruitment rules? It was observed in the said common judgment that the state-respondents inspite of statutory rule in force have given a go-bye to the rule of law, and adopted an approach for appointment to those posts ignoring the statutory rules. Notwithstanding the observation made above, it was observed by the said common judgment that the petitioners cannot claim their ad-hoc appointment from the date when the private respondents were appointed. Simultaneously, it has been observed that the stand taken by the state respondents cannot be accepted as a reasonable stand and thus such stand was declared illegal and unconstitutional. Those two writ petitions were disposed of, with the following directions:

(3.) It is really surprising to note that all the ad-hoc appointments were quashed but none of the ad-hoc appointees except Dr. Dilip Kumar Das [the respondent No.5 in WP(C)No.532 of 2012] and [Dr. Subhajit Das] [the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.532 of 2012] and Dr. Narayan Das [the respondent No.5 in WP(C)No.534 of 2012] and Dr. Nilotpal Chakma [the respondent No.6 in WP(C)No.534 of 2012] was impleaded. It was directed that the process of appointment at all level of AGMC will be made strictly in accordance with rules.