SRI SAMIRAN DEB AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA AND THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions were heard together on the request of learned counsel of both side. Both the writ petition stands on same fact and identical question of law raised in both the cases. Hence, both the cases were heard together and this single judgment shall govern both the cases. In both the writ petitions, the writ -petitioners filed relevant documents and for the sake of convenience, document filed in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2012 has been referred hereunder in course of discussion.

(2.) RESPONDENTS contested the writ cases by filing joint counter affidavits. Going through the counter affidavits, it is found to be difficult to discern as to what the respondents actually wanted to plead and what is the clear stands of the respondents. What may be understood from the whole counter affidavits are that there was no such vacancies for UR category candidates after promotion up to Serial No. 54 of the select list. It is not disputed that the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of ASI and their names appeared in the select list, but because of the fact that there was no further vacancy for promotion of UR category candidates, the petitioners could not be promoted.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel, Mr. Deb as well as learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that once a select list is prepared after conducting written test and interview, the Rule prescribes that the select list shall remain valid until it is completely exhausted. The respondents invited application from eligible candidates for filling up of the vacancies existing and anticipated of the post of ASI and the petitioners appeared in the selection process and their names appeared in the select list. Whereas, before giving them promotion, DGP has again issued impugned Memo dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P -7) inviting fresh departmental examination keeping the select list dated 18.12.2010 alive. It is also contended by learned counsel of the petitioners that from the select list dated 18.12.2010 (Annexure P -2), candidates were also promoted on 15.10.2011 and 02.05.2012. Whereas, the petitioners were not promoted though there were vacancies available for UR category candidates, which is reflected in Annexure P -5 i.e. the information collected through RTI. This is a sheer discrimination on the part of the respondent (DGP) in giving promotion to the UR category candidates and hence, necessary direction should be issued to the respondents to give promotion to the petitioners in the existing vacancy of UR category candidates.