Ramu Debnath And Ors. vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. DK Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. TD Majumdar, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, particularly the respondent No.5, i.e. the District Education Officer who refused to countersign the experience certificate for the post of Student Counsellor and School Library Assistant.

Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that by dint of the Notification under No. F.1(1-20)SE-E(N/G)/2017 dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura invited applications from eligible Indian nationals permanently residing in Tripura for consideration of appointment to the categories of posts, namely, Academic Counsellor, Student Counsellor, School Library Assistant, Hostel Warden and Programme Assistant. The petitioners intended to file application for the post of Student Counsellor and School Library Assistant. By the said notification, a format of the application has been provided. In Sl. No. 20 it has been provided as follows:

"........................

Details of experience: - (Certificate to the issued by the Head of offices/DDOs with Counter-signature of the District Education Officer)"

Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that the experience certificate is issued by the Head of office/DDO but in the format it has been made mandatory that such certificate shall be countersigned by the District Education Officer, the respondent No.5 herein. The petitioners obtained the experience certificate and rushed to the respondent No.5 but the respondent No.5 did not countersign the said certificate without providing any reason whatsoever. As a result the petitioners could not submit their application.

It has been submitted by Mr. Das Choudhury that the experience certificate issued by the Head of Officer/DDO was duly submitted before 10.07.2017 but the District Education Officer refused to countersign those certificates. As a result, the petitioners could not file the applications in time.

Mr. Das Choudhury, learned counsel has further submitted that the experience certificate was obtained much in advance but for dilly dallying tactic of the respondents No.5, they could not file the application as the respondent No. 5 refused to countersign it.

Mr. TD Majumdar, learned GA appearing on instruction of the respondents has submitted that the last date of filing application was 10th July, 2017. The petitioners did not approach this Court in time. Now for oblique purpose the petitioners have approached this Court. Mr. Majumdar, learned GA has further submitted that the Education (School) Department will not extend the time for receiving the application in terms of the notification dated 27.06.2017. Mr. Majumdar has also brought to the notice of this Court that even no letter addressing the District Education Officer is available in the writ petitions.

Even though this Court is not quite satisfied what necessitated the respondents to ask for the counter signature of the District Education Officer, but since the last date for receiving of the applications in terms of the notification dated 27.06.2017 is over, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, there is not a piece of paper to demonstrate that the respondent No.5 did receive the Experience Certificate or for his dilly dally, the notice of the higher authority was drawn. Even no representation to the competent authority is available with this writ petition. Hence, the fate of the writ petition is foreclosed.

In view of this, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, in any event, if time is extended for submission of the application in terms of the notification or in terms of any other notification in respect of these posts the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court.

There shall be no order as to costs.