DHYANESH KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, in all the three above numbered petitions, by these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking Articles 14 and 16, in aid of their case, pray for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise them in service on permanent basis in the posts of Information and Cultural Officers under the Directorate of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism,, Govt. of Tripura and quash the Memo dated 29.7.93 (Annexure-7) allowing the petitioners to continue in service for a further period from 1.3.93 to 31.8.93 on ad-hoc basis.

(2.) As can be seen from the year of registration of these petitions, even after a lapse of almost three years these petitions were still at the stage of admission and listed as such, although an interim order of stay against proposed discontinuation from service, passed on 30.81.93 in Civil Rule No. 289/93 has all along been operating, the hearing of these petitions was/or had to be adjourned for one reason or other. It may also be noted that these petitions were finally heard, not once but twice but no order could be passed. The ordersheets further reveal that number of times these petitions were ordered to be listed as a fixed item on the top of the list and were in fact so listed, but all in vain.

(3.) When this bunch of petitions came to be listed before me for the first time on 25.4.96, for hearing, it had to be adjourned for a week at the instance of the petitioner's counsel. Accordingly these petitions were listed on 2.S.96, when once again a prayer for adjournment was made by the petitioners on the ground that Senior Counsel Mr. Lodh was suffering from dysentery. There being counsel, as many as four, representing the petitioners, the prayer for adjournment was disallowed A detailed order assigning reasons tracing the long history of adjournments, in face of the operation of interim order of stay was passed, it was only then that Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 289 of 1993 came forward to argue for the petitioner, in presence of Mr. Lodh (Junior). It may be noted that the petitions are identical in nature, involving identical questions of law, there being no dissimilarity even on facts, barring a few, such as date of joining service, the academic qualifications possessed by the respective petitioner, nonetheless the basic facts remain the same as indeed it is the petitioners pleaded case that their interest are identical. The previous ordersheets also indicate that all the three petitions were heard together, the arguments advanced are common to all the petitions, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The order sheets dated 25.4.96 and 2.5.96 may also be read, along with this judgment as they would help appreciate the circumstances in which hearing had taken place.