Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 78 (TRI)

Debasish Debnath v. State of Tripura

2022-02-15

S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner can be sourced at the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 delivered in Rev. Pet. No. 38 of 2018. In the said judgment, this court had occasion to observe that the respondents [the official respondents in the present petition] shall within a period of three months from the date of receiving the order constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] and consider the eligible Assistant Demonstrators (seri) having minimum ten years of service with the certificate course of training in Sericulture for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer (SDO). The respondents shall promote those persons who will be found suitable for such promotion by the DPC. It is made clear that any deviation from this order shall be dealt sternly by this court. The DPC shall also consider whether the petitioner can be promoted from the date when they became eligible for consideration for promotion. 3. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that when the said direction was not complied, the petitioner of that review petition had initiated a contempt proceeding being Cont. Cas(C) No. 46 of 2019. While responding to the allegation of wilful disobedience, the respondents had categorically stated in their reply filed on 03.08.2019 that the steps were taken for implementation of the said judgment and order and the time lines had been laid down. The schedule for convening the DPC was laid out. It had been also asserted that in pursuance to the order of this court, the DPC met on 18.02.2019 and recommended the suitable/eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer against the vacancy as available, subject to 100 point roster [after verification] under promotion quota. As per the recommendation of the DPC, the action was initiated for approval of the competent authority and the views of the Law Department. As per the recommendation of the DPC, the action was initiated for approval of the competent authority and the views of the Law Department. The Law Department had suggested that the promotion orders might be issued, based on the recommendation of the DPC only after the vacation of the status quo order passed by the apex court in the matters of promotion in SLP(C) No. 019762/2015 and SLP(C) No. 019765 019767/2015 or the civil appeals pending therefrom or the challenge is decided. 4. While acting on the said observation, the official respondents faced another contempt proceeding, wherein the Chief Secretary had filed one personal affidavit and stated that the State Government is willing to implement the order of the Hon'ble High Court fully. But it has come to the notice of the government that the recommendation of the DPC is not in conformity with the order and judgment dated 09.04.2015 as delivered in WP(C) No. 189 of 2011, WP(C) No. 124 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 109 of 2011. In para-21 of the affidavit filed by Sri Manoj Kumar, the Chief Secretary, on 19.11.2020 it has been categorically stated that the Administrative Department has proposed that as an interim arrangement to comply with the Court's Orders, the candidate upto 9th seniority position as recommended by DPC, which would include both the petitioners of that writ petition, Sri Debabrata Acharjee & Sri Ajit Patari may be considered for promotion immediately. Thus, Sri Dilip Murasingh, Smt. Manna Deb, Sri Debasish Debnath, Sri Debabrata Acharjee and Sri Ajit Patary all working in the post of Assistant Demonstrator, Sericulture may be promoted to the post of Sericulture Development Officer. It was also proposed that Sri Dilip Murasingh (ST), Assistant Demonstrator, Sericulture occupying the first position in seniority list may be considered for promotion against vacant posts reserved for the ST Category. 5. It has been stated by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel that it would be evident from the order dated 19.11.2020 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] that deviating from the said statement made before this court, only the private-respondents namely Shri Debabrata Acharjee and Shri Ajit Patari were appointed to the post of Sericulture Development Officer in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,700/- Rs. 24,000/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- (Level-10) with prospective effect subject to final outcome of the pending SLPs before the apex court. 6. Mr. 5,700/- Rs. 24,000/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- (Level-10) with prospective effect subject to final outcome of the pending SLPs before the apex court. 6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the minutes of the DPC as held on 18.02.2019 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition]. For purpose of reference, since the petitioner falls within the UR category candidate, the relevant table as framed by the DPC while recommending the name of the candidates who were considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer, is reproduced hereunder: Sl. No. Name of the employee Seniority position Sl. No. zone of consideration 1. Shri Dilip Murasingh (ST) 01 01 2. Shri Manna Deb 02 02 3. Shri Debasish Debnath* 06 03 4. Shri Debabrata Acharjee 07 04 5. Shri Ajit Patari 09 05 6. Shri Tapas Ranjan Majumder (SC) 13 06 7. Shri Tapas Chandra Das (SC) 14 07 8. Shri Sukanta Chakraborty 15 08 9. Shri Bimal Debnath 17 09 10. Shri Arabinda Debnath 18 10 11. Shri Kharendra Tripura (ST) 22 11 12. Shri Partha Pratim Roy 24 12 7. It is apparent that the name of the petitioner of the instant writ petition appears at Sl. No. 3 whereas the names of the persons who have been appointed by the order dated 19.12.2020 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] appears in the Sl. No. 4 and 5. Even, in terms of the seniority position, they are junior to the present petitioner. Hence, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that this is a hostile discrimination and as such, this court should intervene into the matter directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in terms of the order dated 19.12.2020. 8. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the recommendation of the DPC held on 18.02.2019 is no longer valid in view of the revised guidelines issued vide notification No. F.2(24)-GA(P & T)2021 dated 22.06.2021. Hence, on the basis of the recommendation of the said DPC, the petitioner cannot be promoted. 9. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has also pointed out that the said promotion has been made subject to outcome of the SLPs as referred before. According to him, in terms of the new policy, a regular DPC may be held based on the existing seniority list. 9. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has also pointed out that the said promotion has been made subject to outcome of the SLPs as referred before. According to him, in terms of the new policy, a regular DPC may be held based on the existing seniority list. However, while issuing the orders it should have been stipulated that these promotions are provisional and subject to the final outcome of the SLPs pending in the apex court. Subsequently, when the directions will be available, a review DPC may be held and the necessary adjustments be made in the promotion of the officers based on the revised seniority list. In case, any of the officers appointed on ad-hoc promotion do not figure in the list approved by the review DPC, they may be reverted to the posts held by them earlier. 10. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A., this being the new guidelines, the recommendation of the earlier DPC cannot be acted upon. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has desperately submitted that the order dated 19.12.2020 has been issued on the face of the contempt action and the direction of the court was in personam not in rem and as such, the petitioner cannot get benefit of the said judgment and order. 11. Having appreciated the records and averments along with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the action of the respondents is completely in contrast to the judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 inasmuch as it was clearly spelt out the respondents shall promote those persons who will be found suitable for such promotion by the DPC. Even the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary has revealed that the five persons out of nine persons recommended by the DPC for the time being might be promoted. But no ground has been disclosed why the petitioner and two other senior persons were bypassed by the respondents. This is a gross discrimination and anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As such, this court had no other alternative but to interfere with the action of the respondents. The respondents by overlooking the senior Assistant Demonstrators who are above the private respondents in the seniority position and even their position in the recommendation made by the DPC, has committed discrimination and as such, the action warrants interference from this court. It is ordered accordingly. The respondents by overlooking the senior Assistant Demonstrators who are above the private respondents in the seniority position and even their position in the recommendation made by the DPC, has committed discrimination and as such, the action warrants interference from this court. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner and two other persons namely Shri Dilip Murasingh and Smt. Manna Deb holding the feeder posts viz. Assistant Demonstrators to the post of Sericulture Development Officer on promotion in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,700/-24,000/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- [Level-10] w.e.f. 19.12.2020 when the respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed. Since, the petitioner did not occupy the position, their pay be fixed notionally from 19.12.2020 but all financial benefits shall be given from today notwithstanding the date of issuance of the promotion order. The respondents are directed to issue the formal promotion order within a period of six weeks from today without fail. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.