SUSHANTA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged the seniority list, issued vide Memo No.294- 447/F.1(151)-DLSR/ESTT/80-81 dated 12th January, 1983 by which the seniority position of Junior Amins in the Directorate of Land Records and Settlement (herein after referred to as the DLRS), Govt of Tripura has been finalised and subsequently issued Memorandum bearing No.5539-939/F.1(5)- DSLR/ESTT/82/Pt.dated 9th April, 1991 by which the final seniority list for the posts of Amin under the DLRS, Govt of Tripura had been published.

(2.) The petitioner along with others were temporarily appointed to the posts of Junior Amin vide Memorandum dated 5.1.1979. Subsequently, the petitioner and other Junior Amins had been re-designated as Amins wef 1.2.1983 pursuant to Memo dated 16.6.1983. The petitioner along with other Amin/Junior Amins had been deputed to undergo training at the Training Centre of the DLRS in the year 1979-80 and among the 34 trainees, the petitioner secured the highest mark and in the result sheet, his name figured at Serial No.1 in that training, but while publishing the seniority list dated 12.1.1983, the petitioner's name was figured much below his colleagues whose performance in the training had admittedly been inferior to the petitioner, but in the subsequent seniority list, the seniority of the incumbents holding the posts of Junior Amins/Amins had been determined according to the position secured in the departmental training and as such the petitioner sought for a writ of Certiorari directing the quashment of the aforementioned two seniority lists and also a writ of Mandamus directing the State-respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the private respondents according to the merit position available in the result sheet of the aforesaid training.

(3.) The State-respondents filed the counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that result of any training, departmental or otherwise, cannot be the criterion for determining the seniority and in fixing the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the private respondents, the authority followed the existing rules.