CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 12 TP CK 0007

Sikha Chanda vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Tripura High Court · Decided on 18 December 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Talapatra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 1168 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 325 words
1.

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner challenges the decision contained in the communication dated on 13.07.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). This is a consequential order in terms of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 20.08.2016 delivered in WP(C) No.428 of 2012, which was filed by the present petitioner.

3.

In the said judgment, the following direction was passed on the respondent:

"But before leaving in the records, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners against the vacancy those are still vacant on priority without any further interview or assessment of the comparative merit. The entire exercise shall be completed within 3(three) months from today. It is hoped that the respondent shall sympathetically consider the petitioners case so that the petitioners are appointed as Assistant Teachers (B. Sc. Pure)."

4.

Based on the said direction the present petitioner served a notice on 22.06.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and in response to which, the respondent No.3, The Director of Secondary Education by communication dated 13.07.2017 has observed as follows:-

"....after careful Examination these cases has been regretted vide Memo. Dated 19th March, 2016 as there is no vacant post of Assistant Teacher available, out of those posts for which the advertisement was given in the 2010 against which they may be accommodated."

5.

Mr. Deb, learned counsel has strenuously argued that the consideration could not have been restricted to the vacancies available for 2010. The petitioner ought to have been considered against the vacancies available in its aftermath.

6.

This court is not inclined to accept that analogy and finds that the decision as contained in the communication dated 13.07.2017 is well reasoned and as such there should be no interference. Having observed thus, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA has entered his appearance on behalf of the respondents.