CHANCHAL RAKSHIT Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2 by Annexure-1 issued an advertisement dated 14.11.2001 in a local daily inviting applications from bonafide Indian nationals and permanent residents of Tripura for several posts including one post of Garden Assistant (Class-Ill non-Gazetted) at Serial No. 9 of the said advertisement. The qualifications for the said posts are that the candidates must have passed the Madhyamik Examination or any other equivalent examination for which preference would be given to those who have knowledge of Agro-Climatic Situation of Tripura. The age limit prescribed for all categories of posts including the post of Garden Assistant was to be between 18 to 37 years as on 01.11.2001. It was also provided in the advertisement that maximum age limit was relaxable by 5 years in case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Government employees. The petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form along with attested copies of certificates and documents required on 19.11.2001 to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner states that apart from fulfilling of all essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, he also possess certificate of experience in Gardening issued by the North Eastern Electrical Power Corporation, a certificate in Horticulture Examination 1993, issued by the University of Calcutta, certificate of experience in Gardening issued by the Rubber Board dated 16.11.2001, certificate of experience in Gardening issued by Horticulturist (West), Govt of Tripura dated 26.02.2001 vide Annexures-10, 11, 12 and 13. The petitioner further states that a substantial number of candidates appeared in the interview for the single post of Garden Assistant on 18.05.2002 and the interview board consisted of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 but without any person having qualification, experience or specialisation in horticulture, even though such experts are included in the Board for interviewing the candidates for the post of Computer Assistant and Vehicle Supervisor. It is the further contention of the petitioner that there was no candidates except him who had educational qualification i.e., one year certificate course in horticulture of the University of Calcutta besides having substantial knowledge of Agro-Climatic Situation of Tripura and outstanding knowledge and experience in horticulture especially in floriculture and gardening. The petitioner also states that being a science graduate and also having a satisfactory academic career he reasonably and legitimately expected that he would be selected and appointed to the post of Garden Assistant. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he was waiting for his appointment, he came to learn from news item published in the local daily 'Dainik Sambad' in its issue dated 13.10.2003 that the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the said post through nepotism even though he was aged 17 years and 7 months. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said news items also alleged that the respondent No. 5 was so appointed as his uncle was employed in the Tripura Legislative Assembly Secretariat and he was an influential leader of Employees Association. The same allegation was also made in 'Syandan Patrika', another Bengali daily of Tripura. It is also contended by the petitioner that the allegation appearing in the aforesaid news items remain unrefuted by the respondents. The petitioner also contends that he came to know that the respondent No. 5 passed Madhyamik Examination but did not have any education or training in gardening or horticulture or any experience in the line. According to the petitioner the selection of the respondent No. 5 was made without any authority of law and by means of nepotism or favouritism and as such his selection/appointment be cancelled.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contested the writ petition by filing their counter affidavit. Similarly, the respondent No. 5 also resisted the writ petition by filing his counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 state that for the purpose of selection of candidates for the post mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-1) the Hon'ble Speaker of the Tripura Legislative Assembly constituted a selection board consisting of the Deputy Speaker, who was to act as Chairman of the Board, the Secretary of the Tripura Legislative Assembly Secretariat as a Member Secretary, the Joint Secretary of the Tripura Legislative Assembly Secretariat as Member and the Deputy Secretary of the Tripura Legislative Assembly Secretariat as Member. It was also ordered that the selection committee could include an expert whenever deemed necessary by the said Board. The respondents categorically deny that the Board was not constituted of persons having qualification, experience or specialisation in Horticulture. It is contended by the Assembly respondents that it was not mandatory for the Board to include an expert and that when the petitioner did not make any protest against the composition of the Board and after he participated in the interview he cannot now challenge the composition of the Selection Board. In so far as the interview for Computer Assistant is concerned, the Board in its wisdom though it fit to engage an expert in the subject of computer and as such a computer expert was included in the Board. In any case, it is submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that non-inclusion of an expert in the selection board did not violate any rules of recruitment and cannot vitiate the selection made by the Board on that count. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also vehemently deny that there was no candidate except the petitioner who had educational qualification as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that in terms of the advertisement preference would have its role only when other things are equal and since the petitioner was not found suitable for the post, no preference should be given to him by reason of his possessing certificate of gardening etc. It is also denied by the said respondents that the respondent No. 5 was not 17 years and 7 months as alleged by the petitioner or in the said news paper but had completed 18 years of age at the time of filing the application for the post. The said respondents also annexed the Admit Card said to belong to the respondent No. 5 in which his date of birth was recorded as 05.01.1980, vide Annexure-B/2. The said respondents also deny the allegation of the petitioner that they were influenced by a person (uncle of the respondent No. 5) without even disclosing the name of the said person and/or the post he holds. The said respondents categorically deny that there was any external influence in the matter of selection of the Garden Assistant. The said respondents also point out that the allegation made by the petitioner are too general or sketchy and that proper foundation has not been laid by him to make out a case of malafide or bias. The respondent Nos.2 to 4, therefore, prays that the writ petition may not be admitted and the same be dismissed at the admission stage.