Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 519 (TRI)

Subham Sarkar v. State of Tripura

2015-07-13

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.TALAPATRA

body2015
ORDER : Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection process and selection list dated 28.6.2015 prepared by the respondents and also for directing the respondents to select him for admission in B.Sc. (Agri) with Experiential Learning Programme in Tea Husbandry & Technology course. 2. Affidavit has been filed by Mr. D. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that he himself has personally served the notice upon the newly added respondent No.4, Ms. Poonam Debnath. Despite such notice being served, none has appeared for the said respondent Ms. Poonam Debnath. We, therefore, propose to dispose of this petition in her absence. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Directorate of the Department of Industries and Commerce invited applications for recommending names to fill up 5(five) seats in B.Sc. (Agri) with Experiential Learning Programme in Tea Husbandry & Technology course. These five seats are to be sponsored by the State Government and they were to be sponsored on merit. The Department of Industries and Commerce prepared a merit list and in this merit list, the petitioner was shown to be at Sl. No. 24 having 66.63% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) Group. The petitioner filed this petition attaching therewith his mark sheets and according to him, his percentage is 86.66 and he would be number-1 in the merit list. In the reply filed by the State, it has been stated that from the mark sheet supplied by the petitioner, it was not clear what was the maximum marks in each subject and, therefore, the maximum marks had been taken as 100. The petitioner has pointed out that the maximum marks are separate for the written examination, the practical test and for the internal assessment and thereafter, the total becomes 100. On recalculation, it is not disputed by the respondents also that the petitioner has 86.66% marks which would mean that he is at Sl. No.1 of the merit list. 4. We, therefore, allow the petition and direct that the petitioner shall be treated as number-1 in the merit list and the State shall make the recommendations accordingly. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 6. Copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties by 4’O clock in the evening.