PANNA LAL SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The precise controversy that calls for adjudication in this writ petition relates to the selection process for admission of in-service candidates in North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (for short, NERIST). The State of Tripura is allotted a seat every year for admission of in-service candidate in the aforesaid Institute for prosecuting studies in Degree module course. The petitioner who is a diploma holder in Civil engineering was selected and sponsored for admission in the aforesaid course in the year 1997 as a State candidate of Government of Tripura. But the petitioner could not avail of the nomination in view of a writ petition filed by another candidate alleging that no proper circulation was made before the petitioner was selected. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Government of Tripura issued a memorandum on 7-8-98 inviting all Heads of offices to sponsor the names of willing candidates for consideration for admission to the NERIST. In the said memorandum, there was no mention of any reservation for any socially backward classes, but later on, the Director of Higher Education vide notification dated 17-9-98 published in a local daily, namely, Manush Patrika, clarified that the admission to the aforesaid Institute would be made as per hundred point roster. In due course, the respondent No. 4 who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community was selected and sponsored. The writ petitioner who was an applicant failed to secure the nomination. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid selection on the ground that the provisions of hundred point roster related to the appointment in Government service cannot be applied to the selection of candidates for admission in NERIST. It is also pleaded that the law laid down by the Supreme Court does not permit reservation of more than 50% of the seats in a year for candidates belonging to listed classes and as such the aforesaid notification issued by the Director of Higher Education providing for application of hundred point roster for the purpose of selection of candidates for admission is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and is violative of the rights guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent and Mrs. J. Chakraborty, learnedcounsel for the respondent No. 4.

(3.) The State respondent as well as the respondent No. 4 submitted their counter-affidavit separately controverting the contention raised by the petitioner.