MRINAL KANTI BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, prayed for quashing/setting aside Notification dated 31.03.2005(Annexure -P/6 to the writ petition), issued by the Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission (respondent No. 4) by which the private -respondents (respondent Nos. 5 to 8) were recommended for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering of Tripura Engineering College (for short 'TEC') and also prayed for directing the official respondents to hold the petitioners as eligible for selection to the posts of Assistant Professor(Civil Engineering) of TEC and further prayed for quashing/cancelling and/or setting aside the offer of appointments issued to the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for the posts of Assistant Professor of TEC.

(2.) HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Acharjee, for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate, Mr. T.D. Majumder for the State -respondent Nos. 1 to 3, learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta for the respondent No. 4, Tripura Public Service Commission, learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. B. Chakraborty for the private -respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and learned Sr. Assistant SG, Mr. P.K. Biswas for the respondent No. 9, National Institute of Technology.

(3.) THE petitioners contended that they all are having with the degree at Master's level (M.E.). Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are working as Executive Engineer under the Public Works Department of the Government of Tripura and the petitioner No. 3 is working as an Assistant Engineer under the same department and that petitioner No. 1 gathered 15 years of experience and petitioner No. 2 gathered 6 years and petitioner No. 3 gathered 10 years of experience in the meantime as a members of the Tripura Engineering Services under the Government of Tripura. The petitioners applied for the posts of Assistant Professor with all their testimonials and they claimed that they were eligible candidates for the posts, but respondent No. 4, Tripura Public Service Commission, illegally and wrongly did not invite them for the interview, whereas, the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were called for the interview and selected. It is also contended by the petitioners that the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 had no minimum experience as required in the advertisement and so, their selection was wrong and illegal and pursuant to such selection their appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor was also illegal and not tenable in law.