SOMA BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

(2.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the notice No.F.1(06-2946)- ESSTT/PR/ 2017/28039-43 dtd. 23/3/2018 issued by the Director of Panchayats, Government of Tripura, whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated on expiry of a period of one month from the date the notice was served upon her.

(3.) The facts of the case, in a short compass, are that the State respondents invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Rural Programme Manager(Group-C) drawing specifically the eligibility criteria in the notification/advertisement published in newspapers. The age, being one of the criteria, the upper age limit was stipulated as 40 years as on the first date of advertisement. Knowingfully well the 'condition' mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post and was called for interview. Being selected, she was favoured with the issuance of an offer and appointment dtd. 16/1/2017(Annexure-5 to the writ petition), on receipt of which the petitioner submitted all the required testimonials, and thereafter, she was asked to join the post and, accordingly, the petitioner was serving the respondents.