MD. SAMIM MIAH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this intra-court appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.07.2020 delivered in WP(C) 569 of 2019 which is a common judgment passed in two analogous writ petitions. Apart from the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner [the appellant herein], one Amit Kumar Das on identical grievance had filed another writ petition being WP(C) 961 of 2018. Both the writ petitions have dismissed by the said judgment and order dated 02.07.2020.

(2.) The petitioner filed the writ petition as he was not selected in the post of fireman (Group-C). By the Advertisement No.4605/4- 9(Fireman)/TFS/2015 388, vacant posts of Fireman (Group-C) were notified for filling up. The petitioner being eligible for the said post participated in the selection process. The petitioner succeeded in the physical measurement test and he was therefor called for written test. The petitioner had completed successfully written examination. Pursuant to the said exam inaction, the petitioner was called in the viva-voce test. According to him, the members of the interview board asked him some general questions, to which the petitioner answered correctly. According to him, his interview lasted for 1.5 minutes and thereafter he was asked to leave. When the final common merit list was released, the name of the petitioner did not feature.

(3.) While publishing the select list, the break-up of marks secured by the candidate in the written examination and the viva voce test was not provided. Thereafter, the petitioner sought the disclosure of detailed information under the RTI Act. But, he was not given the information of the other selected candidates on the ground that those persons objected to such disclosure as those were personal information. Subsequent to that, the petitioner was served with the break up and the marks obtained by him in the written examination and in the oral test, wherefrom, it surfaced that the petitioner secured 25 marks in the written examination and 4.25 marks in the oral interview. Thus, the aggregate of the petitioner was 29.25 marks.