KANAI SINGHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

(2.) This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this court earlier challenging the same selection as has been challenged in this writ petition. But he had withdrawn that writ petition with liberty reserved to file a fresh petition on in the same cause and that would be evident from the order dated 14.12.2012 delivered in WP(C) 553 of 2012. Almost after two years, a fresh writ petition has been filed by the petitioner urging this court to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Graduate Teacher (Pure Science), if necessary by creating posts w.e.f. the date on which the respondents No.3 and 4 had been appointed, with all financial and service benefits including seniority. It has been also indicated that if the circumstances so demand, the selection of the respondents No.3 and 4 be set aside and in the vacant posts, the petitioner be directed to be appointed.

(3.) Briefly stated, relevant facts are that the petitioner had all the qualifications to be appointed as the Graduate Teacher (Pure Science) and he had applied for the said post in response to the notification dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Pursuant to the said notification, as it appears from the records, no interview had taken place. Later on a fresh notification was issued on 14.09.2010 under No.F.1(1-48)-SE/E/(NG)/2010 inviting fresh applications from the eligible candidates for appointment in that post. It was notified in the said notification dated 14.09.2010 that those candidates who had applied in response to the notification dated 23.09.2009 should not apply afresh. Thus, the petitioner was invited to appear before the interview board constituted by the respondents No.1 and 2 by the memorandum dated 13.09.2010 (Annexure-R2 to the reply filed the respondents No.1 and 2).