Debabrata Acharjee And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. K De, learned Addl. GA appearing for the applicants.

By this application, the respondent-applicants have urged for extension of time for implementation of the judgment and order dated 12.05.2017 delivered in WP(C) 64 of 2017 read with judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 delivered in Review Petition No. 38 of 2018.

It has been stated that in view of the status quo order passed by the apex court on 27.07.2015 in SLP(C) No. 19765-19767/2015, the state government has not been issuing any promotion order.

However, Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has, in his usual fairness, brought the notice of this Court to the order dated 13.02.2017, in particular, whereby the apex court has passed the following order:

"In the meanwhile, we partially modify the order of status quo to the effect that the report of the Sate Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe Commission may be placed before the Cabinet for an appropriate decision.

Of course, this will be without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties."

Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has taken us to the decision of the Council of Ministers taken on 22.02.2017 whereby it has been held:

"The Council of Ministers accepted the report of the State SC and ST Commission and decided to continue the existing State Reservation Policy as provided in the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1991 and Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 both in direct recruitment and promotion."

Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has submitted that if the said decision of the Council of Ministers and the leave granted by the apex court are read together, the decision of the Council of Ministers be deemed to have been in force as there is no embargo by operation of any decision of the apex court. However, according to information, Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has submitted that some contempt actions were also drawn for issuance of the promotion orders.

Mr. Bhowmik has also pointed out that the department is finding further difficulty for the memorandum No.F.2(24)/ GA(P&T)/05(Vol-II) dated 01.04.2017 (Annexure-6 to the rejoinder filed by the respondent-applicants). By the said memorandum, it had been adverted that consequent upon the order of the apex court dated 27.03.2017 directing to issue notice to reply on the 2 (two) contempt petitions, it has been decided by the State Government that until further orders the memorandum dated 14.12.2016 by which it was decided to give promotion shall be kept in abeyance.

In reply to the submission made by Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General, Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents has submitted that such contempt proceedings have been stayed by the apex court.

This Court is really surprised how such approach can be resorted to by the respondent-applicants. After the order that has been passed by this Court on 09.01.2020 while purging the respondents from the allegation of contempt, it had been observed as follows:

"Be that as it may, if the said judgment and order, which has been alleged to have violated, is implemented, the respondent shall not be prejudiced in any manner. As assured, the said judgment and order be implemented to avoid further action."

Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has made a reference to the advice tendered by the Law Department that it would not be proper to make any promotion order. Such advice tends to 'sit over' on appeal over the decision of this court. It thus, inheres disparage.

Having perused the orders of the apex court as well as the memorandum dated 01.04.2017 this court is of the view that the order of status quo which has been supposedly vacated in a restrictive manner pairing for the further action of the Council of Ministers and a new situation has been generated but without the relevant considerations, the respondent-applicants approached this court. Even the memorandum dated 01.04.2017 is in respect of one memorandum dated 14.12.2016 whereby a decision was taken to grant promotions, subject to the decision of the apex court in the pending civil appeal.

Further, this Court has reflected in the order dated 09.01.2020 that the DPC after consideration of the incumbents in the feeder post, including the writ petitioner-respondents, has recommended 12 persons belonging to the UR category strictly observing the 100 point roster, against 12 UR vacancies available clearly for promotion. The name of the writ petitioner No.1 is in the serial No.1 whereas the name of the writ petitioner No.2 appears in the serial No.5 as reflected in the

Note No.6 produced in the proceeding being Cont. Cas(C) No. 14 of 2019.

Having observed thus, this Court is not inclined to grant further time to the respondent-applicants. However, considering the element of processual time and as the final opportunity, two weeks time is being afforded to the respondent-applicants to implement the judgment and order dated 12.05.2017 delivered in WP(C) No. 64 of 2014 read with the judgment and order dated 28.01.2018 delivered in the Review Petition No. 38 of 2018 by issuing the promotion orders.

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of.

A copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.