CHURCHILL SANGMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAHNISIKHA Chakma, since deceased, the predecessor of the present petitioners, presented the writ petition seeking the following relief: -

(2.) THE petitioner inter alia contended that she joined the post of Women Police Sub -Inspector under the State -respondents on 18.03.1981 and her service record has/had been without blemish. She passed pre -promotional examination for consideration of her promotion to the next higher rank, but her promotion was not considered on the plea that there was no vacancy and the only promotional post of the Inspector of Police (Women) was already occupied by her senior Smt. Hela Rani Dutta Roy. Since no promotion was given, challenging Notification of the Government of Tripura dated 10.02.1984 and further praying for directing the State -respondents to consider her promotion in the post of Inspector of Police with retrospective effect, she filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 425 of 1997 (re -numbered as W.P. (C) No. 234 of 2004) and in that writ petition, the State -respondents taken a stand that the petitioner could not be promoted since the single promotional post was already occupied by her senior and that as and when there will be scope to promote the petitioner in the post of Inspector of Police (Women), she will be surely promoted in accordance with Rules. It is alleged that subsequently, one Smt. Chandra Das (Debbarma), who was her junior was promoted on 04.01.2001 during the pendency of her writ petition and thereafter on query, she could learn that her case was not at all considered by the State -respondents and the respondents thereby, violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. She, however, did not make any allegation against selection of Smt. Chandra Das (Debbarma), but arrayed her as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. She has also alleged that she was not even provided financial benefit for stagnation in the same post for more than 10 years and she was compelled to serve in the same post for last 24 years without any benefit of promotion. It is further stated that her writ petition was disposed of by Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2005 directing to make suitable modification in the Recruitment Rules. Subsequently she preferred a Review Petition No. 05 of 2005 and that Review Petition was also disposed of by Judgment & Order dated 08.06.2005 and in the order passed by the High Court in the Review Case, a liberty was given to her to file fresh writ petition and therefore, she filed the present writ petition. Referring the Judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Tripura & others vs. K.K. Roy reported in : 2004 AIR SCW 1, it is alleged that the State -respondents were bound to create promotional avenue for the employees working under the State and at least, two promotions in the service carrier should be given and in case of necessity, supernumerary post should be create for giving promotion. Accordingly, she prayed for the relief as stated hereinbefore.

(3.) HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. B. Das assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the State respondents.