JIBAN KRISHNA SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2019-9-19
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on September 04,2019

JIBAN KRISHNA SAHA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sanjay Karol, S. Talapatra, J. - (1.)The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and /or in the nature there-of, shall not be issued, for quashing/setting aside the impugned second criterion of the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress, Higher Secondary School/District Inspector of Schools (Item No.1) and for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress, Higher Secondary School (Item No.2B) of the Advertisement Vide No.01/2014 dated 31.12.2013(Annexure-A) issued by the Respondent No.3 wherein certificate courses like B.T/CETE/T.Ed had been given the same status as B.Ed Degree and had been treated at par with the B.Ed. Degree (which is s degree course) as well as the impugned Notification vide No.F.11(37-7)- Rectt./TPSC/2013(Vol-I)/172, dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the respondents more particularly the respondent No.3 has most illegally recommended the names of candidates having B.T/CETE/T.Ed. for appointment to the posts as mentioned in item No.1 and 2 (A and B) ignoring the eligible candidates having B.Ed. Degree.

(ii) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents and each one them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature there-of, shall not be issued, for mandating/directing the Respondents, to revoke/rescind the impugned second criterion of the educational qualification for appointment to the post of headmaster/Headmistress, high Secondary School/ District Inspector of Schools(Item No.1) and for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster/ Assistant Headmistress, higher Secondary School (Item No.2A) and Headmaster/Headmistress, High School(Item No.2B) of the (Annexure-A) issued by the Respondent No.3 wherein certificate courses like B.T/CETE/T.Ed had been given the same status as B.Ed Degree and had been treated at par with the B. Ed Degree (which is a degree course) as well as the impugned Notification vide No.F.11(37-7)- Rectt/TPSC/2013(Vol-I)/172, dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure-F) issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.3 has most illegally recommended the names of candidates having B.T/CETE/T.Ed. for appointment to the posts as mentioned in Item No.1 and 2 (A and B) ignoring the eligible candidates having B.Ed. Degree and further to direct the Respondent No.3 to make a fresh recommendation of the name of the eligible candidates having B.Ed Degree for appointment to the posts as mentioned in Item No.1 and 2 (A and B) of the Adv. Dated 31.12.2013.

(iii) CALL FOR THE RECORDS appertaining to this petition;

(iv) Issue rule calling upon the respondents as to why the recommendation and the consequent appointments of the Private Respondents in the Post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress of Higher Secondary School, Headmaster/Headmistress of High School/Inspector of Schools shall not be set aside and quashed by this Hon'ble High Court and further be pleased to declare the recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress of High School/Inspector of Schools as ultra vires of the Constitution and be pleased to struck down the same.

(v) And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule ABSOLUTE in terms of I and ii above;

(vi) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
AND
(vii) Any other RELIEF(S) AS TO THIS Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper."

(2.)After the matter was heard for some time, Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, fairly stated that the writ petitioner(s) would first approach the respondent-State, highlighting their grievances both with regard to the framing of rules as also their non-consideration of appointment through the selection process already undertaken. It is argued that writ petitioner(s) are better qualified, more meritorious and deserve to be appointed. He further states that all this shall be highlighted in the representation to be made to the State. Therefore, permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances is sought.
(3.)He further states that the writ petitioner(s) shall be content if a direction is issued to the appropriate authority to consider and decide their representation expeditiously in accordance with law.
;


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