Abhijit Mahajan vs State Of Tripura And Ors

None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

By way of filling the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a rule under the seal of this Hon'ble Court, to show cause the respondents as to why a writ of Certiorari or in the nature thereof shall not be issued for quashing/cancelling/setting aside the list of candidates(Annexure-P/4)

(ii) Issue a rule under the Seal of this Hon'ble High Court to show cause the respondents as to why any action and/or actions, in furtherance to the list of candidates (Annexure-P/4), be not declared void.

(iii) Issue Rule NISI.

(iv) In case the respondent authorities show causes or not be kind enough to make the Rule in regard to the prayer(i) and (ii) absolute.

(v) Call for records comprising the documents of Notification/Advertisement dated 27.05.2016, wherein application were invited for filling up of certain posts under the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura on temporary and fixed pay basis, as well as the entire proceeding of the interview, so far it relates to the selected candidates and the petitioner and the papers submitted before the authorities.

(vi) Be kind enough to issue a writ of mandamus, direct/mandating/commanding the respondent No.1 and 2 to institute a fresh recruitment procedure for ensuring proper selection of eligible candidates.

(vii) Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper".

In this writ petition, the petitioner has argued that he is eligible to be appointed in the post of Pharmacist (Allo) by the State-respondents. In response to an employment notification, the petitioner had applied for the post of Pharmacist (Allo). The petitioner being prima facie found to be eligible was asked to appear before the interview board. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the interview board for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Allo). Subsequently, the lists of the successful candidates were published. The petitioner found that he was not selected. Being aggrieved for non-selection to the post of Pharmacist (Allo), the petitioner filed this writ petition before this Court praying for cancellation of the said select list.

None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called out. This is a petition which was filed in the year 2017. Hence, I have taken up the matter considering the subject matter involves in the writ petition.

I have heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., who has submitted that similar issues were raised by one similarly situated person by way of filing a writ petition and in that writ petition also it was prayed for cancellation of the entire selection process and for setting aside the list of successful candidates. The matter was decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Justice Mr. S. Talapatra) and while disposing the said WP(C) No.786 of 2017 titled as Sri Anjan Deb Vs. State of Tripura and ors., decided on 30.07.2019, the Court in para-21 has observed thus:-

"21. The challenge to the General Guidelines [Annexure-20 to the writ petition being [WP(C)No.786 of 2017, the lead case] and to the Employment Notification cannot be entertained by this court for the simple reason that the challenge is interrelated with the selection where the petitioner had taken part without demur and he was substantially aware of the process as adverted beforehand by the Employment Notification. That apart, the petitioner has failed to establish that the General Guidelines as challenged was made the basis for the selection. It appears that the selection Board has followed uniform parameters. That apart, on the face of the categorical statement made by the official respondents that the private respondents and other selected candidates were only selected on the basis of merit [see para-11 of the reply filed by the Official-respondents]. Such challenge turns to be irrelevant. Further, the petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that the degree of B. Pharma was not done after obtaining D. Pharma or without completing the course which is imparted in D. Pharma. In absence of such material, the challenge in respect of the qualification is wholly untenable".

In the instant case also, the petitioner had participated in the selection process without raising any objection about the process of selection and the methodology adopted by the selection committee in selecting the suitable candidates. The Selection Board had followed uniform parameters.

In my considered view, had the petitioner being selected, he would not have challenged the said process of selection. Hence, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.