MANINDRA CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ petition has sought for the following reliefs:

(2.) In short, the petitioner's case could be narrated thus: (a) The petitioner along with others have been appointed to Tripura Police Service Grade-II (T.P.S. Grade-II) by direct recruitment vide Notification No. F.2 (36) - GA/75 dated 2nd June, 1976. Long after the appointment of the petitioner some officers, namely, Shri Dhurjauti Gautam, Shri Manindra Bhowmic, Shri Amal Kanti Roy, Shri Parswanath Roy and Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Choudhury, (Respondent No. 3) were appointed to Tripura Police Service Grade- II vide Notification dated 2nd November, 1976, 23rd April, 1977 and 23rd August, 1976 and as such, the petitioner ought to have been declared to be confirmed prior to the confirmation of those officers as the petitioner successfully completed the period of probation before the completion of the same by the aforesaid officers. Initially the authority vide Notification dated 5th April, 1986 showed 6.7.1978 being the date of confirmation of the petitioner. Petitioner made correspondences regarding mentioning of wrong date of confirmation and the authority having detected the wrong issued the corrigendum bearing No. F. 12 (1) - GA/75 dated 18th April, 1988 (Annexure-2B) putting the correct date of confirmation of the petitioner as on 10.6.1978 instead of 6.7.1978 and as such, petitioner's seniority ought to have been fixed with reference to the date of confirmation of himself vis-a-vis other contemporaneous officers. (b) The State respondent vide Notification No. F10 (20)-GA/83 dated 4th December, 1987 appointed 9 officers of T.P.S. Grade-II to the post under T.P.S. Grade-I, but the petitioner's case was not considered. On the same date by different notifications of even No. dated 4th December, '87, 11 other officers including the petitioner had been promoted to the post under Grade-I on officiating basis. In order of confirmation the petitioner ought to have been declared as senior to those officers and in the promotional year his name ought to have been placed above the name of those officers who had been confirmed with reference to the subsequent dates. The petitioner being a member of scheduled caste community ought to have been promoted to the post of T.P.S. Grade-I against the available vacancy meant for S.C. candidate. The petitioner mm another grievance that since he was appointed soon before appointment of officers under Sl. No. 12 to 21 of the seniority list, his seniority should have been counted from the date on appointment to the post under T.P.S. Grade. II In making promotion to those officers and the petitioner the authority according to the petitioner, has not followed the 100 poinl roster meant for special category candidates During the sendee career petitioner had neve been communicated with any adverse entry in the A.C.R. The respondent No. 1, the Stad Government vide Notification bearing No. F.20 (3) - GA/85 dated 30th April, 1986 framed a Recruitment rale for the ex-cadre post of Additional Superintendent of Police; having 6 (six) sanctioned posts. According to that Recruitment Rule, (Annexure-8-A) the petitioner was not only eligible to be appointed on promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police on following the 100; point roster of reservation but also he ought to have been given preferential treatment but that was also not done. Petitioner also made allegation regarding the improper grading of his A.C.R. by the authority. Some officers junior to the petitioner in T.P.S. Grade-II had been made the controlling of the petitioner who wrote the A.C.R. of the petitioner which exfacie appear to be unfair and unjust. For the aforesaid reasons the petitioner had been pushed down as a result his juniors who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner had been favoured with nominated I.P.S.

(3.) The petitioner narrated a long history, of his grievance which could be summarised precisely as under: