STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. JHANU DEVI CHAKMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 24.6.2005 passed by a Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No, 467 of 2002 stands impugned in this writ appeal. By the said judgment, the order dated 18.9.02 of the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura, Kailashahar, the fourth respondent herein, cancelling the offer of appointment of the appellant herein to the post of Constable (female) has been quashed.

(2.) The material fact in short giving rise to the present proceeding originated from an advertisement dated 20.9.2001 published in a local daily inviting applications for recruitment of 27 posts of Constable (female) from serving Homeguard, Civil Defence workers and Ex-servicemen through test/interview. In the same advertisement, it was also notified that 518 posts of Constables (male) would also be filled up. Clear indications therein were that 35% of the vacant posts would be reserved for Homeguards, 5% for Civil Defence workers and 2% for Ex-servicemen while remaining vacancies would be filled up by eligible candidates from open market. The respondent herein is a serving Homeguard (female) of the Police department. Pursuant to the said advertisement, she applied for one of the posts and went through the recruitment process for test, written examination and interview. She was found suitable and her name was included in the select list for appointment against one of the 27 vacancies of Constables (female). The State respondents appointed a Board which conducted test, written examination and interview. In the merit list for female candidates, petitioner's position stood at Sl. No. 3. When the merit list of 848 candidates (male) and 47 candidates (female) was sent to the State Government in the Home Department, a direction was received that the said merit list should be rearranged Sub-division wise in order to ensure Sub-divisional representation. This was accordingly done and in the break-up for Kailashahar Sub-Division, her name figured at S.L. No, 4 of the merit list. On the basis of the said select list, the fourth respondent herein by a memorandum dated 7.6.2002 issued offer of appointment to the post of Constable (female) to the petitioner on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-6030/- per month with other admissible allowances whereupon the petitioner communicated her acceptance and furnished all essential documents. But before she could join the post, the said respondent by impugned order informed her that the offer of appointment issued in her favour had been cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of cancellation is not backed by justifiable reasons and, therefore, suffers from arbitrariness. On this ground, the order of cancellation has been called in question in the petition aforementioned.

(3.) The basic question under the above circumstances was what were the circumstances under which this official respondent had to cancel the offer of appointment and whether the same is fair, reasonable and not visited by whim or arbitrariness. Confronted with this question, the State respondents in their counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit tried to justify the action contending, inter alia, that when the State-wise merit list prepared by the Recruitment Board was re-shuffled to ensure Sub-division-wise representation, it came to light after the Sub-division-wise merit list was approved, such re-shuffle of the merit list had upset the original State-wise merit list. It was also noticed that persons in lower position of the merit list came to be eligible in the Sub-divisional merit list at the expense of the more meritorious candidates who attained higher position in the original merit list. It has been admitted that after the approval of the Sub-division wise merit list was communicated to the district Superintendent of Police with direction to issue offer of appointment, the above anomalous position came to light and immediately thereafter instructions were issued to the said authorities not to issue of offers of appointment. When all other Superintendents of Police had carried out the instruction by keeping in abeyance the process of recruitment, the Superintendent of Police, North Tripura who did not receive the letter of instruction in time had issued offer of appointment in favour of the male and female candidates of the said district including the respondent-writ petitioner herein. However, to overcome the anomalous position, the State respondents decided to abrogate the entire merit list of the female candidates and consequently, the fourth respondent had to cancel the offer of appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner. It is strongly contended that mere inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the select list has not conferred indefeasible right of appointment on her and that with honest and bona fide intention the merit list of the female candidates for the posts of Constable (female) had to be cancelled. This being policy decision in the exclusive domain of the executive, it has been argued that the writ petition in this circumstances was not maintainable.