JAYANTA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.R. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate General, Assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The aforesaid two writ petitions though filed by the different petitioners alleging identical grievance and sought for identical relief and as such, as agreed by the parties, both the cases have been taken up for final hearing analogously.

(3.) In Civil Rule No. 375/1998, there are as many as three petitioners, who unfolded their grievances as follows :- That the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are Graduates and the petitioner No. 3 is not Graduate and have been looking for suitable job. The respondent-State Government through several Departments issued Job Forms inviting the eligible candidates to fill up the Job Forms for being considered for appointment to the respective posts/jobs in accordance with their eligibility and qualification. The Job Forms so submitted by the candidates had gone through proper scrutiny and test by the competent authority and having found the petitioners suitable for the posts of Tahesilder, the competent appointing authority, i.e., the respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura issued offer of appointment in favour of the petitioners for the posts of Tahesilder in the scale of pay of Rs. 970-2,400/- plus usual other admissible allowances. The petitioner No. 1 received the said offer of appointment issued by the respondent No. 2 vide Memo No. F.1(79)-DM/S/ESTT.61 Udaipur, dated 5.1.1993, the petitioner No. 2 (received the offer of appointment vide Memo No. F.1(79)-DM/S/ESTT.63, Udaipur, dated :5.1.1993 and the petitioner No. 3 received the offer of appointment vide memo No.F. 1(79)- DM/S/ESTT.62, Udaipur, dated 5.1.1993. The [petitioners were asked to communicate their acceptance to the said offer of appointment by 20th January, 1993 along with the documents required to be furnished as asked for in the said offer of appointment. The petitioners within the stipulated time communicated their acceptance along with the documents so required. The petitioners were residents of Kailashahar, North Tripura District and being unemployed person they were not in a position to pursue the matter regularly from such a long distance. On 19.9.97, the petitioners found and advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2, published in the daily newspaper 'Daily Desher Katha' inviting application for 43 posts of Tahesilder and as such the petitioners became astonished to know how the respondent No. 2 made an exercise to fill up the posts of Tahesilder despite the petitioners had been offered with the said posts. Thereafter the petitioners started inquiry and they were told that along with the new recruitees pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement their formal letter of appointment would be issued. In course of inquiry, the petitioner came to know that in the year 1993 as many as 16 unemployed persons were offered with the same posts of Tahesilder including one Shri Chitta Ranjan Das. Despite their selection, none was appointed and the respondents kept the matter pending and being compelled the said Chitta Ranjan Das filed a writ petition bearing No. Civil Rule 227/1997 before this Court and during the pendency of the said writ petition the respondents appointed said Chitta Ranjan Das and five others. Having learnt the same, the petitioners promptly approached this count with this petition seeking a direction to be issued commanding the respondents to issue formal letter of appointment to the petitioners pursuant to the offer of appointment already issued and accepted.