Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 577 (GAU)

Jharna Paul (Bhuiya) v. State of Tripura

2003-12-11

AFTAB H.SAIKIA

body2003
JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner who has been working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Tripura, Agartala, in the year 1994, seeking a direction to the respondents to promote her from her initial post to the post of Upper Division Clerk (for short U.D.C.) with effect from 17-12-1987, the date when her juniors, i.e. the respondent No. 3 to 11 were promoted without correcting the seniority list published on 20.7.1987 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), notwithstanding her objection to the said seniority where she was placed at Sl. No. 132. 2. Her case is that since she has been appointed as per Select list which has been published in order of merit, the seniority list dated 20.7.1987 ought to have been prepared keeping in view her placement in the Select list, but instead her name was placed below of her contemporary colleagues who got offer of appointment at the same time with her. Had the seniority list dated 20.7.1987 been prepared as per rule, the petitioner must have been promoted along with the respondents No. 3 to 11 to the post of U.D.C. That apart, she belong s to Scheduled Tribe Community as she comes from Laskar Community ad hence she ought to have been promoted on the reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe when Sri Shyamal Chowdhury, Smti. Jharna Das and Sri Dilip Majumder, all who belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community and being juniors to the petitioner, were promoted to the post of U.D.C. It is averred that she put objection against such promotion of her juniors who were also from Scheduled Tribe community by preferring representation on 2.11.1987. Her last reminder was dated 24.10.1990. According to her, responding to her objections as regards her placement in the seniority list dated 20.7.1987, the authority recast the seniority list in the year 1990 and accordingly final seniority list of Lower Division Clerk as on 1.3.1990 was published wherein her seniority position was shown at Sl. No. 59. After publication of such final seniority list, the petitioner approached the authority for her promotion with retrospective effect as indicated above. No. 59. After publication of such final seniority list, the petitioner approached the authority for her promotion with retrospective effect as indicated above. The respondent No. 2, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura by his communication dated 2.1.1992 informed the petitioner that though her seniority position in the post of Lower Division Clerk was determined, her case for promotion, according to the Government decision, to the post of U.D.C. could not considered against the Scheduled Tribe quota as she belonged to Laskar community. It may be noticed herein that the Government of Tripura by Memorandum dated 30.3,1989 declared that the members of the Laskar community did not belong to Scheduled Tribe of Tripura. Against the said communication the petitioner again represented n 22.8.1992 before the respondent No. 2 praying for her promotion to the post of U.D.C. with effect from 17-12-1987. Thereafter, another representation has been preferred to the Chief Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala on 15-9-1993 by the petitioner making the same grievance. Having failed to mitigate her sufferings, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Government Advocate, assisted by Mr, S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the State respondents. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on close perusal of the materials available on record including the pleadings of the rival parties, it is seen that the petitioner has sought for promotion to the post of U.D.C. with effect from 17-12-1987 by filing this writ petition in 1994. Before preferring the writ petition the petitioner has made protracted correspondence with her authorities by filing various representations in this regard. Keeping in view the factual matrix of the case as well as the relief claimed in this writ petition, it appears that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and on that count alone the instant writ petition deserves to be rejected in view of the established principles of law relating to interference in service matter of this kind in exercise of power of judicial review. 5. In the instant case, the ratio of the judicial authority of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. S.S. Kothiyal and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 682 is squarely applicable. 5. In the instant case, the ratio of the judicial authority of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. S.S. Kothiyal and Ors. reported in (1998) 8 SCC 682 is squarely applicable. In the said case the respondent denied the promotion as Deputy Commandant in 1970 and again in 1971 but promoted in 1972 and, thereafter, the respondent was further promoted as Commandant in 1975, His three representations against such non promotion of Deputy Commandant were rejected respectively in June, 1971, November, 1974 and July, 1977, After rejection of those representations, the respondent moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in 1978. Taken into account such facts situation, the Apex Court held that the writ petition filed before the High Court was highly belated and therefore High Court should not have entertained the same. It was further held that repeated representation preferred by the writ petitioner/ respondent did not extend cause of action. 6. At this juncture, Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that though the respective promotions of her juniors were affected with effect from 17.11.1987 in pursuance of the wrong and incorrect seniority list, the petitioner has been waiting for the result of her representations preferred earlier, the outcome of which was communicated to her only in the year 1992 and, therefore, she could not approach this Court and, as such, there is no delay in preferring the writ petition. Admittedly, at present, the Laskar Community in the State of Tripura does not constitute a Scheduled Tribe community. In the light of such situation, Mr. Sinha has also forcefully submitted that though presently the petitioner has no such locus standi to claim the right for promotion on the reserved quota of Scheduled Tribe, but since the petitioner was refused her promotion in 1987 illegally when her other similarly situated incumbents from Scheduled Tribe community were promoted on reservation quota, she is entitled to a direction from this Court to promote her with effect from 17.11.1987 because at that relevant period she was very much within the reserved quota of Scheduled Tribe. I support of his submission Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1994) III LLJ 579 SC (Central Board of Direct Taxes v. Dr. I support of his submission Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1994) III LLJ 579 SC (Central Board of Direct Taxes v. Dr. O.N. Tripathi) on careful perusal of the observation made by the Apex Court in the above cited case, it is seen that ratio of this case is not at all applicable to the case in hand. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that though the petitioner has sought for promotion with effect from the date when her juniors were given promotion i.e. 17.12.1987, she did not take any steps to move this Court assailing those promotions of her juniors. Nor had the alleged illegal seniority list so published in the year 1987 which was later on recast by the authority in 1990, been challenged. That being so, since the Court has already observed, as indicated above, that there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, this Court is disinclined to entertain this writ petition. 8. According, having considered S.S. Kothiyals's case (supra) and on overall scrutiny of the entire matter this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.