Snigdha Bhowmik vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The Petitioner, who has been working as the Group-D employee having the qualification of Madhyamik passed and with more than five years of service, was called for typing test for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the year 2008. She appeared in the type test. From the records, it appears that she was not successful in the test. Even thereafter, the petitioner made two representations, one on 12.03.2014, Annexure-X/2 to the rejoinder and another on 10.11.2015, Annexure-X/3 to the rejoinder for consideration her case for promotion to the post of LDC, but the petitioner did not get any response from the respondents.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition for directing the respondents to promote her to the post of LDC at least from 05.03.2014 being the date of promotion of the other similarly circumstanced persons whose names are catalogued in the list disclosed by the State Public Information Officer, Public Works Department (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).

It has been admitted by the respondents in their reply that when those persons were promoted, the petitioner's case was not considered for the reason that "The petitioner, who got unsuccessful in type test on 22/10/2008, has subsequently not applied for the same though there were scope for her for applying for the same as stated above." According to the Recruitment Rules, the promotion from the Group-D post to the post of LDC is given not on the basis of seniority alone. A group-D employee having the qualification of Madhyamik passed/Higher Secondary or its equivalent qualification and having five years experience in the Group-D post, are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of LDC subject to passing of the type test with speed of 30 words per minute.

In the exercise of 2008, the petitioner could not be successful in the type test, but as it appears that in 2014, the persons whose names figured in Annexure-8, were appointed but during that exercise the petitioner's name was not at all considered.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was even not informed of any memorandum whereby the promotion to the post of LDC was taken up. By the order, passed in the pre-lunch session, the Deputy Secretary to the PWD who affirmed the reply was called to appear in person to clarify whether any candidate is required to apply for such promotion. He has categorically stated in the negative. Further, he has produced the Memorandum No.F.6(88-PWD(E)/95 dated 26.11.2012 issued from the Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Agartala. The said memorandum dated 28.11.2012 was issued requesting the concerned officers to furnish the particulars of Group-D employees who were possessing the qualification and five years regular service in the grade of Group-D as per the proforma through their respective Superintending Engineer, together with the requisite documents and papers. The Superintending Engineer would ultimately submit a consolidated statement for his circle as a whole to the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Agartala. The document/paper as asked for are:

"i) Service particulars (as per Annexure-A Enclosed)

ii) Attested copy of Educational Qualification/Caste Certificate/Admit Card.

iii) Integrity/Vigilance Clearance Certificate.

iv) A.C.Rs of Dossiers for the last 5(five) years duly countersigned by the Reporting Officer & Reviewing Officer. In case A.C.Rs of any such staff for any period are not readily available, special A.C.Rs for the period involved have to be sent.

v) A certificate from any recognized Computer Training Institute."

It was directed by the said memorandum dated 26.11.2012 that all such particulars shall reach to the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) by 31.12.2012.

It is admitted fact that the petitioner's particulars were not sent. As a result, the petitioner was quite in dark in respect of the exercise following which those persons whose names appear in the list, Annexure-8 to the writ petition were promoted from the Group-D to LDC. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for missing that opportunity. She had the right to be considered but that was denied by the respondents.

As a result, this court is of the view that the respondents shall give the petitioner an opportunity of appearing in the type test as the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be promoted to LDC. If in the type test the petitioner is found successful, she shall be promoted to LDC w.e.f. 05.03.2014 when the persons whose names figured in the list, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, were promoted to LDC. However, if the petitioner is successful, till her assumption of the charge of LDC her pay and allowances will be fixed notionally and no financial benefit would be granted to her, but from the day of assumption, her pay would be fixed taking the pay of the petitioner for the said period notionally.

With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of the memorandum dated 26.11.2012 as produced by the Deputy Secretary appearing in person to this court is made part of the record.