ASHIT KUMAR DUTTA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed to officiate as Revenue Inspector by order dated 23.6.71 passed by the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura. Pursuant to the said order of appointment, the petitioner joined as Revenue Inspector on 2.7.71. He was, however, terminated from service with effect from 1.1.74 pursuant to a Radiogram Message dated 2.1.74 received from the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura. Thereafter, by order dated 11.6.75, the petitioner was again appointed as Revenue Inspector by the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura. Since there was break in the service of petitioner which affected his seniority, the petitioner moved this Court in a Writ Application numbered as Civil Rule No. 174/ 82 and by judgment and order dated 8.12.82, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Civil Rule with the direction to the State Government to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 11.8.81 and 8.3.82 relating to his seniority and other benefits. When the petitioner was not granted any relief, the petitioner again moved this Court in another Writ application in Civil Rule No. 50/83 and by judgment dated 5.5.92, a Division Bench of this Court while quashing the earlier order of termination of service of the petitioner, directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service since 23.6.71 and shall be entitled to get all service benefits. Pursuant to the said judgment and order dated 5.5.92, the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, passed an order dated 26.8.93 to the effect that the seniority of the petitioner as Revenue Inspector was fixed with effect from 2.7.71. By the said order dated 26.8.93, the petitioner was placed above Shri Kumud Bihari Paul Choudhury and below Shri Kalipada Shyam in the seniority list of Revenue Inspector under the District Administration of West Tripura, Agartala, In the meanwhile, however, the respondent No. 4, Shri Narayan Majumdar, was promoted and appointed to Tripura Civil Service Grade-II in consultation with the Tripura Public Service Commission in the year 1989 and the respondent No. 5, Shri Bimal Chandra Roy, was promoted and appointed to the Tripura Civil Service Grade- II in the year 1991. The said promotions of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were considered and effected on the basis of seniority list of Revenue Inspectors working under the District Administration of West Tripura district published in November, 1980. In the said seniority list, the respondent No. 4 has been shown against serial No. 2 and against those appointed] as Revenue Inspectors on initial constitutiion. In the said seniority list respondent No. 5, Shri Bimal Chandra Roy, has been shown against serial No. 8 and against those appointed as Revenue Inspectors on initial constitution. The petitioner, on the other hand, has been shown in the said seniority list against serial No. 25 and against those appointed after initial constitution by way of transfer, promotion, direct recruitment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed thus Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a direction on the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner above the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and for a direction on the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Tripura Civil Service Grade-n on the basis of such re-fixation of seniority.

(2.) During the pendency of the Writ Application, however, the petitioner was promoted to Tripura Civil Service Grade-II in the year 1997. Hence the questions that require determination in the Writ Application is as to whether the petitioner is senior to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Revenue Inspector and, if so, the consequential service benefits that are to be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the seniority list published in November, 1980, by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had been shown as initial recruits to the cadre of Revenue Inspector, but actually they are not appointed as initial recruits. He explained that under the Recruitment Rules for the Posts of Revenue Inspector in District Administration framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by notification dated 19.11.78 (for short "the Recruitment Rules") initial recruits were to be selected from amongst the Assistant Settlement Officers (Non-Gazetted), Kanangos of settlement organisation, Surveyors of district organisation and settlement organisation and after such initial recruitment, subsequent vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment, promotion and transfer. Soon after the initial recruitment, the first appointment by direct recruitment to subsequent vacancies was that of Shri Kumud Bandhu Acharjee who joined as Revenue Inspector on 18.6.71. Hence all appointees who had joined as Revenue Inspectors on and after 18.6.71 are not initial recruits. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 joined pursuant to their appointments on transfer on 7.8.71 and 28.9.71 respectively. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be treated as initial recruits. Mr Bhattacharjee farther argued that since the petitioner's seniority was to be counted as a direct recruit with effect from 2.7.71, which was the date when he joined as Revenue Inspector, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who had joined subsequent to 2.7.71 would be junior to the petitioner as Revenue Inspector. Alternatively, Mr Bihattacharjee relied on paragraph 7(ii) of fthe General Principles for Determination of Seniority of Various Categories of Persons Employed Under Tripura Administration circulated under office order dated 12.7.60 of the Tripura Administration, Appointment Department for his submission that the relative seniority between the persons appointed on transfer, direct recruitment and promotion will be determined according to rotation of vacancies under the Recruitment Rules. He contended that since under the Recruitment Rules and, in particular, Col. 10 of the said Rules, after the initial constitution was over 25% of the subsequent vacancies were to be: filled up by direct recruits, 50% of the subsequent vacancies were to be filled up by promotion and 25% of the subsequent vacancies were to be filled up by transfer, the vacancies are to be rotated accordingly between the direct recruits, promotees and transferees and the seniority is to be fixed between direct recruits, promotees and transferees according to such rotation of vacancies. He produced before the Court a chart to show that as per rotation of vacancies in accordance with the said Recruitment Rules, the petitioner would be appointed to an earlier vacancy and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would be appointed to subsequent vacancies. He submitted that as per the said General Principles for Determination of Seniority of Various Categories of Persons Employed Under Tripura Administration, the petitioner should be placed above the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the cadre of Revenue Inspectors.