Jishu Bhattacharjee vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Petitioner has challenged a memorandum dated 16th August, 2013 by which the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC, for short) promoted several Junior Demonstrators (Sericulture) to the post of Sericulture Development Officer.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Production Assistant (Sericulture) in the year 1997 on fixed salary. He was regularized on the said post on 01.01.2000. This post was re-designated as Junior Demonstrator (Sericulture). The TTAADC has promulgated recruitment rules for its various posts. Post of Sericulture Development Officer could be filled either by promotion or by deputation or transfer. For promotion following criteria are laid down :

"A) BY PROMOTION.

i) From the post of Demonstrator (Sericulture) having one year Certificate course Training in Sericulture from recognized Institute of the Central Silk Board/State Govt. with H.S. (+2 state) Examination Passed in ay stream.

FAILING WHICH

(ii) From the post of Junior Demonstrator (Seri)/Asstt. Demonstrator (Seri) with 10(ten) years of total service in the grades having One year Certificate Course Training in Sericulture from recognized Institute of the Central Silk Board/State Govt. with Madhyamik Examination passed in any stream."

[3] A seniority list for the post of Junior Demonstrators was published as on 01.06.2013 in which the petitioner was shown as the senior most. Respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 were shown junior to him. Despite this, when the DPC met on 16.08.2013 for granting promotion to the post of Sericulture Development Officer, the petitioner was not recommended, instead his juniors respondents No.4, 5 & 6 were recommended and thereafter duly promoted by the impugned order. The case of the department appears to be that the petitioner had not completed essential training of 1 year in Sericulture from a recognized institute when the DPC meeting was convened. His case was therefore not considered. To this the petitioner would point out that the respondents No.4 and 5 had also not completed such training. They were considered by relying on a relaxation in favour of SC/ST candidates which did not amend the recruitment rules. Without amending the rules the essential condition for promotion could not have been relaxed.

[4] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it emerges that the respondents No.4 and 5 have been promoted against their reserved quota for SC/ST candidates. The petitioner belongs to the General category. His contentions therefore that the respondents No.4 and 5 could not have been promoted by relaxing the requirement, cannot be considered in the present petition. The said respondents No.4 and 5 were being considered for reserved category posts for which the petitioner could have no claim. The question is was the petitioner incorrectly kept out of consideration.

[5] The criteria for promotion contained in the recruitment rules noted above laid down that for the post of Sericulture Development Officer first the department would consider Demonstrator (Sericulture) having 1 year of certificate course training. If this source fails, the department would consider junior Demonstrator (Sericulture)/Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) with 10 years of total service and having 1 year certificate course training in Sericulture from recognized institute of the Central Silk Board or the State Government. The minutes of the DPC dated 16th August, 2013 clearly record that the case of the petitioner was not considered because he did not have the certificate of completion of this training. The petitioner has not produced any documents to dislodge this recording of fact by the DPC. In the reply also the respondents have on oath reiterated this position. In the rejoinder all that the petitioner has stated is that when the DPC was convened, the petitioner could not produce certificate of completion of the training since such certificate was not issued, though he had completed the training. There is nothing on record thus to show that the petitioner actually had completed the training and for which the certificate was duly produced before the department when the DPC was convened. The DPC therefore correctly did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.

[6] Learned counsel for the TTAADC also stated on instructions that the petitioner produced such certificate only on 21.07.2014 before the department. The petitioner's non-promotion at the relevant time therefore cannot be stated to be illegal. The respondents No.4 and 5 were promoted against the reserved quota after the notification for relaxing the requirement of training completion was issued and respondent No.6, though junior to the petitioner, had completed the training and was therefore considered and found fit for promotion. No case for interference therefore is made out.

[7] Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that presently there are number of vacancies of the promotional posts. The petitioner also is duly qualified. I am sure for such vacancies as and when the department undertakes the exercise for granting promotion, the case of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with rules.

[8] With these observations petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.