Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 415 (TRI)

Swapan Kumar Debnath v. State of Tripura

2014-12-09

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for granting him the following relief:-- "In the premises aforesaid it is prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the respondents as to why a writ of certiorari should not be issued declaring that the petitioner has been treated with hostile discrimination against Smti. Malaya Sinha and the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit given to Sri Ashit Baran Paul by the judgment dated 31.03.2004 passed in Civil Rule 138 of 1996 and to grant the petitioner the same relief as has been granted to Sri Ashit Baran Paul as per direction issued in the judgment quoted in para-8 above; - AND/OR - as to why a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to grant the aforesaid reliefs within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and also to treat the petitioner in the post of Physical Instructor Gr. I with effect from the date when the said Smti. Malaya Sinha and Sri Ashit Baran Paul have been so treated and then the petitioner be treated as Physical Instructor (Selection Grade) with effect from the date when those persons were so treated and to give him all service benefits accordingly." 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the State-respondents. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he applied for the post of Physical Instructor (Grade-II) in the year 1983. Another Smt. Malaya Sinha and Sri Ashit Baran Paul also applied for the same posts. The educational qualification required for the post was under graduate. All of them were under graduate when they applied for the posts. They were selected for the posts as per their prayers. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner and Smt. Malaya Sinha and Sri Ashit Baran Paul all appeared in B.A./B.Com respective examination in the said year. When the offer of appointment was issued, in the meantime Smt. Malaya Sinha became graduate. Minimum educational qualification required for the post of Physical Instructor Grade-I was graduate. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner and Smt. Malaya Sinha and Sri Ashit Baran Paul all appeared in B.A./B.Com respective examination in the said year. When the offer of appointment was issued, in the meantime Smt. Malaya Sinha became graduate. Minimum educational qualification required for the post of Physical Instructor Grade-I was graduate. So, Smt. Malaya Sinha when became graduate before the acceptance of offer, she made a representation to the authority to give her appointment to the post of Physical Instructor Grade-I and accordingly her prayer was allowed and she was appointed in the post of Physical Instructor Grade-I. In the meantime, Sri Ashit Baran Paul also got his graduation and he made representation for his appointment to the post of Physical Instructor Grade-I, but his representation was refused. He filed Civil Rule 138 of 1996 in the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench and the High Court by Judgment dated 31.03.2004 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to appoint him as a Physical Instructor Grade-I. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition claimed similar benefit. 4. The respondents contended that Smt. Malaya Sinha before acceptance of offer in the year 1983 became graduate and made representation to the authority and accordingly, her representation was considered and she was appointed in the post of Physical Instructor Grade-I. 5. Sri Ashit Baran Paul filed writ petition in the year 1996 and his writ petition was allowed since he made representation in time. In case of the petitioner, he accepted the offer of appointment on 30.06.1983 and before acceptance of offer he made no representation that he become graduate. His result of graduation was published on 09.08.1983, i.e., after his acceptance of offer. His claim is barred by delay and laches. 6. Considering the case of the petitioner as a whole, I find that the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2009. He accepted the offer of Physical Instructor Grade-II on 30.06.1983. So, he came before the Court for the benefit after 26 years. Even at the time when Sri Ashit Baran Paul filed the writ petition, he did not approach the Court. The writ petition of Sri Ashit Baran Paul was disposed of in the year 2004 and at that point of time also the petitioner did not approach for similar benefit. Even at the time when Sri Ashit Baran Paul filed the writ petition, he did not approach the Court. The writ petition of Sri Ashit Baran Paul was disposed of in the year 2004 and at that point of time also the petitioner did not approach for similar benefit. He came before the Court after more five years. So, the claim of the petitioner appears to be barred by delay and laches and the petitioner at this stage after about 31 years of his appointment cannot claim such benefit and the writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.