SOMEN BAIDYA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. B. Datta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. We have also heard Mr. P. Datta, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The correct interpretation of the advertisement, dated 5.10.2009, issued by the respondent No. 3, namely, Principal, Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (in short, RIPSAT), Abhoynagar, Agartala, inviting applications, for lateral admission to the second year (3rd semester) of B.Pharma course, for the academic year 2009-10, is the bone of contention in this appeal.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it may be noted that the Regional institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (popularly known, and hereinafter referred to, as 'RIPSAT') was earlier known as Regional Pharmaceutical Institute and in short, 'RPI'. The appellant, who had stood first in the D. Pharma examination, in the year 2006, from RIPSAT, filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to W.P. (C) No. 366 of 2009, his case being, in brief, thus: By the said advertisement, applications were invited from not only those, who had obtained diploma in Pharmacy, in the year 2008, from RIPSAT, but also from those candidates, who had obtained diploma in B. Pharma in the years preceding 2008. In terms of the said advertisement, two seats were reserved for admission to the said course in favour of the first and second rank holders in Diploma in Pharmacy, who had obtained diploma in the year 2008, from the RIPSAT and one was reserved for in-service candidate. Out of the said two reserved seats, meant for the first and second rank holders, as mentioned hereinbefore, one of them, namely, the second rank holder, did not apply for admission. The seat, which had been reserved in favour of the second rank holder, as aforementioned, having not been filled up by the said second rank holder, the said seat ought to have been treated as de-reserved and the writ petitioner ought to have been admitted against the said seat inasmuch as the writ petitioner was the next candidate, in order of merit, in the common select list of candidates, including those, who had passed in the year 2008, from the RIPSAT, but the State respondent/authorities concerned illegally allotted the said de-reserved seat in favour of the respondent No. 4, who had secured, in the B. Pharma examination, in the year 2008, lower percentage of marks than that of the writ petitioner. Though the respondent No. 4 was third in order of merit among the examinees, who had passed in the year 2008, yet she, being below the writ petitioner, in the general merit list, ought not to have been allotted the seat by denying rightful claim of the writ petitioner.