Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 176 (TRI)

Sanjib Biswas v. State of Tripura

2014-05-07

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J.:- Heard Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. At the outset, Mr. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate has made a quantified statement based on the records of the Selection Committee that the petitioner has been considered and graded ’A’ in the Unreserved category (UR). Having regard to the grading, the petitioner has been recommended for appointment in the UR category. The State Level Committee while compiling the records has shown the petitioner erroneously under the SC category and the offer of appointment has been in the SC category, even though the petitioner does not belong to the SC category. 3. Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never claimed him as candidate from the SC category. He applied in the UR category and appeared as the UR category candidate. Mr. Datta, has further referred to the show cause notice by which the petitioner was asked to explain why his selection and offer of appointment as the SC category candidate shall not be cancelled. In response to that show cause, by filing the reply dated 28.02.2006, Annexure-M to the writ petition, the petitioner has made the position unequivocally clear that nowhere he has claimed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community. However, the respondents, without considering that aspect of the matter and without even considering the records of the Selection Committee cancelled the offer of appointment of the petitioner by the Memorandum dated 25.04.2006, Annexure-N to the writ petition, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate has fairly acceded that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the mistake committed by the State Level Committee while compiling the records. He has further submitted that at the relevant point of time, vacancy was available in the UR category. The petitioner can well be accommodated by the respondents. 5. In view of that, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner in the UR category candidate at the relevant point of time on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the Sub-Divisional level. The petitioner can well be accommodated by the respondents. 5. In view of that, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner in the UR category candidate at the relevant point of time on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the Sub-Divisional level. If the petitioner is entertained against such vacancy, his appointment shall be made from the date when the appointments were made in pursuance to the offer of appointment issued to the similarly situated persons, but the petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefit. His initial pay shall be fixed notionally from the date of his appointment. The pecuniary benefits would be accrued from the day of his appointment. The respondents are further directed to complete the entire process within a period of 4(four) months from today. 6. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. The records so produced by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Govt. Advocate shall be returned forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to the counsel for the parties.