SHANKAR NANDI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was originally enrolled as rural home guard volunteer with effect from 10.7.1989 in the Tripura Homeguard Organisation. The State respondents decided to appoint Constables in the Tripura Police from the Homeguard volunteers. The petitioner applied for the post and went through the selection process of physical test and written examination. He was one of the selected candidates and received offer of appointment to the said post on 16.3.1996. He joined the post on 18.3.1996 and reported for training with effect from 25.3.1996. But on 8.6.1996. he received the termination order on the ground that he was wrongly appointed to that post. It was clarified in the said termination order that the offer of appointment received by the petitioner was in favour of Homeguard No. 792258 recruited in 1979. But the name of the petitioner was erroneously mentioned in the offer of appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed only in the year 1989 and his Homeguard No. was 892258. That apart, the decision of the State Government was to recruit only those Homeguards who were recruited on or before 1985 and selected through physical test and written examination. After the termination, the petitioner was taken back to his original post of homeguard. The contention of the petitioner is that as he was selected on merit and joined the post following his appointment, the order of termination following a policy to recruit only those homeguards who were recruited on or before 1985 is arbitrary and prejudicial for the reason that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show cause about the proposed termination. By means on this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ to set aside the impugned order of termination and consequent release order with a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in the post of Police constable.

(2.) The State respondents contended, inter alia. in the counter affidavit that it was decided by the State Government that certain vacancies in the post of Police constables would be filed up from amongst the homeguard volunteers who had put in four years of service and had requisite qualifications. It has been admitted that the petitioner qualified in the test for the said post but a bona fide error had taken place in the offer of appointment. There were only 43 vacancies of Police constables but the selected homeguard volunteers were 164. It was, therefore, decided that the vacancies would be filled up only from those homeguards who were appointed on or before 1985. Accordingly, 2 volunteers of 1976, 1 of 1979 (petitioner was shown wrongly as a volunteer of 1979). 7 of 1982, 50 of 1984. 2 of 1985, 1 of 1987, 76 of 1989 and 17 of 1990 were on the select list. As all the selected candidates could not be accommodated for want of vacancies, it was decided that the volunteers recruited on or before 1985 would be recruited. The petitioner who was appointed only on 1989 was not to be appointed in terms of that decision. But as he was wrongly shown as a volunteer recruited in 1979, the offer of appointment was erroneously issued in his favour. Surprisingly, though he knew that he was recruited as Homeguard volunteer only on 10.7.989 and his Homeguard No. was 892258, he accepted the offer of appointment issued in favour of the Homeguard No. 792258 enrolled on 10.7.1979, the petitioner did not disclose this error and for that reason he was allowed to undergo the training for certain period till the error was detected. Immediately after the detection, the termination order was issued after giving one month's notice in terms of the offer of appointment. Therefore, it suffers from no illegality and consequently the writ petition is not sustainable in law.

(3.) The admitted positions as surfaced from the rival pleadings may be noted first :