LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-65

JHARNA SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS

Decided On April 19, 2005
JHARNA SARKAR Appellant
V/S
State of Tripura and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the intervention of this court to direct the Government-respondents to appoint her to the post of Compositor reserved for Scheduled Caste on the basis of the select list prepared by the Selection Committee on 24.11.1995.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she passed the Madhyamik examination conducted by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education in the year 1981. Her date of birth is 11th Jan., 1961. She has 5 years of composition work in press. She registered her name in the Employment Exchange at Agartala in 1981 and her registration number is W-2960/81 dated 21.11.1981. The Inspector General of Prisons by the letter dated 18.11.1995 invited the petitioner to appear before the Selection Board on 24.11.1995 in the office of the respondent No. 2 for selection to the post of Compositor in the pay scale of Rs. 970-24. Her name was apparently sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

(3.) According to the petitioner, on 24.11.1995, interview of all the candidates for the posts of compositor and Machineman of the Jail Department under Special Recruitment Drive for Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes were conducted by the same Selection Board. The Selection Board comprised of the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. For the two posts of Compositor, one is reserved for S.T. while the other is reserved for S.C. It is the case of the petitioner that she was the only Madhyamik passed among the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and was quite confident of being selected. According to the petitioner, she was told by the Selection Board on that day that she was recommended for appointment to the said post against the reserved S.C. post. However, when the result of the interview was not published even after the lapse of more than two weeks, she approached this court in C.R. No. 595 of 1995. The writ petition was dismissed on 31.5.1996 as premature when the learned Government Advocate informed this court that the process was still going on and that the petitioner could wait for publication of the select list, which would be published at the appropriate time.