STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. SAHID ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.6.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. (C) No. 436 of 2002 allowing the writ petition of the four petitioners (respondents herein). By the said judgment the order dated 18.9.2002 cancelling the offer of appointments made to the petitioners for the posts of Male Constables issued by Superintendent of Police (North Tripura) has been quashed with a directipn to the State appellants to appoint the said petitioners (respondents herein) as male constables within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

(2.) We have heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State appellants and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The material facts giving rise to the present appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. (i) The four respondents herein have been serving as Home Guards of general category under the Police Department of the appellants herein for a long period. With a view to fill up certain vacant posts of Police Constables under the Tripura Police Department, the State Government constituted a Recruitment Board for selection of candidates. The number of vacancies for Constable (Male) was initially 518 of which 35% was to be reserved for working Home Guards of the department. Later, more vacancies having arisen the said Recruitment Board was informed by the State appellants that the vacancies for male constables had been increased to 848 with instruction to select and recommend 848 candidates. The break up of the said vacancies in different categories is as follows : Unreserved 450 Scheduled Castes 136 Scheduled Tribes 262 Total 848 As 35% of the said vacancies was decided to be reserved for working Home Guards of the Public Department, the vacancies allotted to that category came to be 290 (approx.). The working Home Guards available against different categories of vacancies were as follows : Availability Vacancies H.Gs.UR 240 153 H.Gs. S.C 27 47 H.Gs. S.T. 54 90 (ii) The Recruitment Board prepared a select list of 848 candidates on the basis of merit, which included 153 general category working Home Guards, 27 Scheduled Castes working Home Guards and 54 Scheduled Tribes working Home Guards making 234 candidates of these categories out of 290 earmarked for them. There was thus shortage of 56 working Home Guards of SC and ST category, which vacancies were sought to be filled up by the Recruitment Board from the open market. In the merit list of 153 Unreserved working Home Guards, the names of the four respondents herein, namely, Md. Sahid Ali, Gopendra Nath, Md. Abdul Kadir and Gourmani Nath figured at serial Nos. 85, 104, 105 and 116. In the common merit list of all the 848 candidates, their names figured at serial Nos. 348, 367, 368 and 379 respectively. After completion of the recruitment process the merit list of 848 candidates including 153 working Home Guards of unreserved category was sent to the Home Department for approval. But the said department directed the Police Headquarter to resubmit the State wise merit list of 848 selected candidates showing them against their respective Sub-Divisions which they hail from. Accordingly, the same was done. But on 23.5.2002, the Home Department conveyed approval of the State Government for appointment of only 468 candidates inclusive of women candidates (442 male + 26 female) against the available vacancies of 848 on ostensible grounds of financial constraints. Of the 442 vacancies for male Constables, so approved, only 82 vacancies were allotted for the serving Home Guards of general category which inevitably excluded the four respondents herein being at Sl. No. 85, 104, 105 and 116 from the list. In the Sub-Division-wise approved list, the names of the four respondents herein being in the UR category, however, found place against their respective Sub-Divisions though they were placed at serial Nos. 85, 104, 105 and 116 respectively of the list of UR serving male Home Guards. In the meantime, it was detected that 53 candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes selected from open market were inadvertently included in the approved select list against equal number of vacancies earmarked for serving Home Guards of the said reserved categories. The District Superintendents of Police were promptly instructed not to issue any offer of appointment till the matter was clarified by the Government. But after receiving the approval of the State Government by the above noted letter dated 23.5.2002 and before receipt of the later instruction, the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura issued offers of appointment in favour of the four respondents while in other Districts the appointment process was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, on 10.9.2002 the Home Department by another letter to the Director General of Police cancelled its earlier approval and conveyed approval of the State-wise merit list for only 425 male candidates. Thus, going by the approved merit list prepared State-wise only 82 vacancies were available for serving Home Guards of general category and, therefore, the offer of appointments issued in favour of the four respondents herein, whose position stood far below 82, had to be cancelled by the impugned order of cancellation which came to be challenged in the present writ petition. It may be noticed at this stage that in the subsequent letter of approval dated 10.9.2002, the total posts approved for appointment was only 425 against the earlier approved strength of 442 and even though there has been reduction of 17 posts, the vacancies allotted for the serving Home Guards of general category being 82 remained unaltered.