SHYAMAL ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State respondents. None appeared for respondent No.3.

(2.) THE petitioner, inter alia, contended that he joined in The Tripura Health Services as a Medical Officer in Grade -IV on 19.02.1983 and at the relevant point of time he was working as a Resident Physician in Gobinda Bhallav Pant Hospital(GBP hospital for short). In the year 2005, Agartala Government Medical College(AGMC for short) was established and recruitment process for the college, including teaching staff, was taken up by the State respondents. An advertisement was made on 22.12.2004 in the daily newspaper, namely the 'Aajkal', inviting applications from the interested candidates for appointment to different posts such as Professors, Associate Professors/Readers, Assistant Professors/Lecturers, etc. Copy of the advertisement has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Pursuant to that advertisement the petitioner, since found himself eligible as per MCI guidelines, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in General Medicine and pursuant to his application he was called for interview vide Memo. dated 22.03.2005 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition). He faced the interview for the post of Assistant Professor in General Medicine. By Notification dated 26.05.2005 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) he was appointed to the post of Senior Resident in General Medicine. Respondent No.3 also appeared before the interview board similarly for the post of Assistant Professor in General Medicine and by Notification dated 26.05.2005(Annexure -4 to the writ petition) respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Professor in General Medicine but the petitioner, though faced interview for the post of Assistant Professor in General Medicine, was given appointment as Senior Resident in General Medicine. At the inception the petitioner thought that might be respondent No.3 positioned better in the interview and therefore he was given appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in General Medicine. But in the meantime on September, 2006 the petitioner got some unauthenticated information that in the merit list he was above respondent No.3, but respondent No.3 was illegally appointed as an Assistant Professor in General Medicine depriving him and, therefore, he applied for the select list through RTI by filing an application before the SPIO on 25.09.2006(Annexure -5 to the writ petition). Pursuant to that approach, the SPIO supplied a copy of the select list along with a letter dated 22.11.2006(Annexure -6 and Annexure -7 to the writ petition) and on going through the select list(Annexure -7) the petitioner was surprised to see that in item No.10, i.e. the select list of candidates for general medicine, his name was placed at Sl. No.3 and the name of respondent No.3 was placed at Sl. No.4 but while giving appointment, the State respondents, depriving the petitioner appointed respondent No.3 to the post of Assistant Professor in General Medicine.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.3 also contested the case by filing written statement, inter alia, contending that the petitioner based on misconception and wrong interpretation of law filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.3. It is further contended that the appointment of respondent No.3 was to ensure adequate representation of the Tribal community and it was the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government that respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Professor in General Medicine, being a Scheduled Tribe candidate. It is also contended that respondent No.3 was selected as a candidate belonging to ST category and, therefore there was nothing wrong in his appointment as an Assistant Professor in General Medicine.