Decided on February 05,2021

Monojit Paul Appellant
State Of Tripura And 44 Ors. Respondents


Arindam Lodh,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel assisted by Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that all these writ petitions are covered by a judgment passed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 664 of 2017 titled as Rupak Das and Others v. State of Tripura and Others dated 30.07.2019. For the purpose of reference, the operative part of the aforementioned judgment and order may be reproduced hereinbelow: 19. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records as produced by the official respondents, this court does not find any illegality in constitution of the selection committee/board or in the selection process. Though allegation of malpractice has been raised, but that allegation is not even supported by necessary pleadings or particulars. No bias against any member of the selection board has been attributed by any candidate. On scrutiny of the records of selection, this court does not find any apparent error or trace of malpractice. So far the objection raised in respect of very short time for interview, this court is of the view that the selection process is dissected in various parts including the scrutiny of records and viva voce. Mere statement that no question was put to the petitioners or any of the petitioners is not sufficient. Such allegation has to be established by the person who alleged likewise. He had to immediately react to the method by filing the representation or raising protest. In this case, what has been observed is that no such protest was raised. Only after selection was made, the petitioners started agitating their grievance against their non-selection. From the reports, as relied, it transpires clearly that the grounds as raised are not sufficient to reverse the selection. The petitioners cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the selection process after their discovery that they were not selected. It is well settled law that unless material irregularity or illegality in the selection process is established by the petitioner, the law of estoppel would operate against him and he would not be allowed to challenge the selection after participation. Moreover, it has not been disputed by the petitioners that the candidates who are selected lack the required qualification or eligibility. No other perspective fact which would persuade this court to interfere has been laid. 20. Having observed thus, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Records as produced be returned forthwith.'
(3.) I have gone through the factual and legal aspects of the present writ petitions and I am of the considered view that the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the said judgment as referred to above WP(C) No. 664 of 2017 dated 30.07.2019 .;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.