Shrabani Ghosh & Others vs State Of Tripura & Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ

The stand of the respondents in respect of the challenge to the merit list of English subject against 20 posts (SC-3, ST-12, UR-5) declared after the recruitment exercise under advertisement dated 29.07.2022 is based upon a legal proposition that under the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 as amended till date and the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992, the vacancies of reserved category (SC/ST) which remain unfilled in any particular year would be carried forward to successive recruitment years and not limited to only the succeeding recruitment year.

Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State, has in particular referred to paragraph-10 of the Schedule of the Act of 1991 as amended in 2005.

Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has, however, drawn attention to Rule 8(8) of the 1992 rules, in particular Clause (c) whereunder the required number of unfilled vacancies would be carried forward to the next recruitment year only. He has also relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in case of Sri Snehashish Roy vrs. The State of Tripura and 6 others [WP(C) No.21 of 2023] on 25.01.2023 wherein the challenge was to the preparation of the merit list in respect of the Bengali subject under the same advertisement dated 29.07.2022 and on the same grounds. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has quashed the merit list after considering the import of Rule 8(c) of the Rules, 1992 and the Division Bench judgment rendered in W.A. No.458 of 2020 in the case of Pankaj Bhowmik vrs. The State of Tripura and others and directed the respondents-State to recast the entire select list as per the ratio rendered in the said judgment. To his knowledge, this judgment has not been carried in appeal so far.

Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Halam, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, submits that Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jayanta Chakraborty and others vrs. State of Tripura and others reported in (2015) 1 TLR 846 on the same issue has not been taken into consideration in the above judgments. He, however, submits that the decision of the learned Full Bench of this Court has been carried in appeal before the Apex Court and is sub judice before the Apex Court along with other analogous matters.

Having regard to the contentious legal issues in relation to the application of the enabling provision under Article 16(4B) of the Constitution of India and the Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the State of Tripura and also the decisions rendered by this Court from time to time, it would be proper that learned counsel for the parties submit comprehensive written notes and also a compilation of the relevant Act, Rules and the decisions on which they seek to rely upon at least one week before the next date of hearing.

List the matter on 16.08.2023.