SUMAN DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are tied up together for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the facts and question of law involved in both the petitions are identical and the material documents relied on by both side except that of the personal testimonials of the petitioners are also same and hence the cases were taken up together for hearing and disposal and WP(C) 200 of 2009 has been taken up as the lead case and the material documents submitted by the parties referred from that case record.

(2.) THE only question fell for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the writ petitioners have been discriminated and/or denied appointment to the post of Wireless Operator(Assistant Sub -Inspector, for short, ASI) wrongly and arbitrarily and whether the recruitment board failed to correctly construe the provisions of Rule 7 of the recruitment rules.

(3.) PURSUANT to an advertisement made by respondent No. 3, the Chairman of the recruitment board, for direct recruitment to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI), Suman Das, the petitioner of WP(C) No. 200 of 2009, applied for the post as a Scheduled Caste(for short, S.C.) candidate and Milan Gerard Debbarma and Partha Kalai, both the petitioners of WP(C) No. 201 of 2009 also applied for the post as Scheduled Tribe(for short, S.T.) candidates. So far as the counter affidavit of the official respondents is concerned, the advertisement was published in various newspapers, namely the Telegraph, Dainik Sambad, Daily Desher Katha, Syandan Patrika, Tripura Darpan, etc. and also in the electronic media. The number of post was 70(seventy) in total and out of it 39(thirty nine) posts were reserved for S.T. category, 12(twelve) posts were reserved for S.C. category and 19 posts were for Un -Reserved(for short, U.R.) category. Educational and technical qualification required for recruitment to the post was given in item No. V of the advertisement, which is pari materia to Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules.