KEDAR SING Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi, J. -
(1.) These Appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.01.2018 in W.P. (C) Nos.271 of 2017 and 84 of 2017.
(2.) This litigation has a long history. Briefly stated the facts are as under:
All the appellants-original petitioners were engaged as Havildar (General Duty) in the Tripura State Rifles ('TSR', for short). As per Rule 37 of Tripura State Rifles (Recruitment) Rules, 1984, post of Havildar (Clerk) would be filled up by transfer from amongst general duty Havildars failing which from amongst Naiks, failing which from amongst Lance Naiks and failing which from amongst Riflemen, who fulfill certain conditions such as (a) are willing for transfer; (b) have passed at least matriculation or an equivalent examination; (c) possess minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typing; (d) have put in at least 2 years of service and (e) have been approved for such transfer by the Deputy Inspector General.
(3.) In the year 2004, the Government undertook the exercise of filling up of several vacancies in the post of Havildar (Clerk). A DPC was convened which recommended names of 29 candidates for transfer/promotion to the said post of Havildar (Clerk). The names of the petitioners were not included in the said initial list. Subsequently, another panel was prepared on 12.05.2004 which included the names of the petitioners. The department granted transfer/promotion to two candidates shown at serial numbers 11 and 12 of the said list subsequently prepared ignoring the claims of the petitioners who were enjoying a superior rank position upon which the petitioners and some other similarly situated candidates filed W.P. (C) No.188 of 2006 before the Gauhati High Court. The Gauhati High Court disposed of the said petition by a judgment dated 15.12.2010. In the judgment the learned Single Judge noted the stand of the department that the petitioners were not granted promotion/transfer since they had approached the High Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
'That apart, in view of appointment of the respondent Nos.29 and 30, whose names appeared at Sl. No.s11 and 12 in the earlier panel dated 17-5-04, the refusal to appoint the writ petitioners, whose names also appeared in the said panel at Sl. Nos.1 to 10, on the ground of pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, cannot be the sufficient and ground to deprive the petitioners from the benefit of promotion, inasmuch as there was no stay order in respect of the appointment of the petitioners on promotion. Fact remains that at the relevant time, ten vacant posts were available in the said establishment and the panel showing the names of the qualified candidates included the names of the petitioners at Sl. Nos.1 to 10 of the said panel. Therefore, there is sufficient merit in this writ petition.
7. However, in view of the submission that the petitioners' cases would be considered for promotion maintaining their seniority with retrospective effect after disposal of this writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition should be disposed of directing the State respondents to consider the petitioners' case for promotion maintaining their seniority with retrospective effect.
8. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. The entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from this date. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents for doing the needful.' ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.