AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These three contempt petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 6th March, 2020 in WP(C) No.1421 of 2019 and connected petitions in case of Mithun Sharma versus State of Tripura and others.
Counsel for the respondents stated under instructions that in Contempt Petition No.23 of 2020, the petitioner Ms. Anamika Rudra Pal was offered appointment in terms of the directions issued in the said judgment, however, she has indicated in writing in a letter dated 10.07.2020 that she is already appointed as an officer in the Bank and, therefore, she is not interested in this offer of appointment. In case of Contempt Petition No.25 of 2020, the petitioner Sri Mithun Sharma is offered appointment. His verification of documents is over and he will resume his charge shortly.
In connection with Contempt Petition No.24 of 2020 in case of Sri Tathagata Chanda, counsel for the respondents stated that while operating the merit list as directed by the Court, it was found that one Rupam Datta was next in line as per merit. He has conveyed his unwillingness to accept appointment.
In view of the said statement, I do not find any need for issuing any directions in Contempt Petition No.23 of 2020 and Contempt Petition No. 25 of 2020. So far as Contempt Petition No.24 of 2020 in case of Sri Tathagata Chanda is concerned, it is provided that the Bank shall ascertain whether the said contempt petitioner's name appears immediately below the name of the said Sri Rupam Datta as per merit and offer appointment on the post in question if as per the rules of the Bank, waiting list is to be maintained. This exercise may be completed within 8(eight) weeks from today. Whatever be the decision of the Bank, the same shall be communicated to the said petitioner.
All the contempt petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.