Sri Krishna Das vs Tripura University

Heard learned counsel of both sides.

[2] An advertisement was issued on 10.11.2023 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) for filling up different posts at Tripura University. One of the such posts was Deputy Registrar (Post Code A-04) wherein total numbers of posts were four and out of said posts, one post was open for the un-reserved category, one post for Scheduled Tribe (for short, ST) category and two posts for Other Backward Classes (for short, OBC) category. The required essential qualification for the said post as per said advertisement was as follows:

[3] The petitioner, who belongs to SC category, also submitted his candidature for the said post as an in-service candidate, as he was at that time serving as Executive Engineer of Tripura University. According to him, he as an Executive Engineer was enjoying the equivalent scale of Pay Level 11 and, therefore, was qualified to apply for the said post. The petitioner claims to have applied for the post both as UR and SC category candidate, claiming to have requisite qualifications for selection in the UR category.

[4] A list was published on 27.02.2024 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) by the University prepared on the basis of the recommendation of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee, showing the names of the candidates who were found „eligible‟ as well as „not eligible‟ for the post of „Deputy Registrar‟ against the UR quota. In the said list, both the private respondent-Muneendra Mishra (placed at Sl. No.13) and the petitioner-Krishna Das (placed at Sl. No.14) were declared as „not eligible‟. Simultaneously, another list for SC candidates was also published on the same date wherein the present petitioner-Krishna Das, was similarly shown as „not eligible‟. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Registrar of Tripura University on 01.03.2024 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition) claiming that he was eligible for both as UR and SC candidates. Then, Tripura University published another list on 23.10.2024 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition) showing the petitioner as „not eligible‟ against the UR category post, but the private respondent was shown as 'eligible'.

[5] Again, the petitioner submitted further representations on 13.05.2024, 20.05.2024, 29.05.2024, 10.06.2024, 28.06.2024 and 04.11.2024 (all are parts of Annexure-8 of the writ petition) and ultimately on 14.11.2024 the University published another notice (Annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed by the University respondents) containing a list for SC category of candidates asking the present petitioner and three others to appear before the interview board on 02.12.2024. According to the petitioner, though interview was held on that day, no result has yet been published, whereas on 11.11.2024 an office order was issued (Annexure-9 of the writ petition) accepting the joining of the private respondent as Deputy Registrar on 11.11.2024 against UR quota.

[6] It is the grievance of the petitioner that keeping the matter of publication of merit list of the SC category of candidates pending, Tripura University held an interview for the post of Deputy Registrar for the UR category of candidates on 08.11.2024 and thereafter, on the same day, pursuant to the 44^th Meeting of Executive Council, the University issued an offer of appointment to said private respondent no.4, and the private respondent also joined accordingly on 11.11.2024 to the said post. On the same day another employment notification was issued by the Tripura University (Annexure-10) for the post of „Hindi Officer‟ which the respondent no.4 was holding prior to his joining to the post of Deputy Registrar on 11.11.2024 and said „Hindi Officer‟ was advertised as a „lien vacancy‟. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that in the 44^th Executive Council held on that day, no agenda or decision was taken regarding filling up the said post of „Hindi Officer‟ granting lien in favour of respondent no.4, but despite the same illegally said notification was issued.

[7] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that there cannot be two separate selection processes for the UR and reserved category of candidates for the same post, as reserved category candidate on merit can also occupy the post meant for un-reserved category. But in violation of said principle, the present selection process has been done in a very hurried manner and illegally, somehow to accommodate respondent no.4. Moreover, the selection process meant for SC category candidates has been kept in abeyance for uncertain period. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Barman, also raises another issue that the private respondent earlier was working as „Hindi Officer‟ and he did not have the required experience of 5 years as an Assistant Registrar or in equivalent post in the pay level of 10 and above.

[8] It is also argued by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel that the ground for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner to compete against UR quota, as revealed in the counter-affidavit, is that he did not have required administrative experience as he was holding a technical post of Executive Engineer and therefore, he was not placed in the equivalent category of post of Assistant Registrar by the University authority, which was completely erroneous.

[9] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman, further contends that as per the counter-affidavit of the University authority, the petitioner was an in-house candidate and therefore, the respondent-University in exercising their power under Rule 32 of the Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2023, granted relaxation to him by waiving the required administrative experience and allowed him to appear in the oral interview against the SC quota. But such approach was also not proper on their part.

[10] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman also challenges the working experience of respondent no.4 on the ground that working as an in-charge in any post cannot be treated as regular experience in such post. In this regard, he also relies on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Girja Shankar Shukla versus Sub-Divisional Officer, Harda and others, AIR 1973 Madhya Pradesh 104 and relevant paragraph no.38 as relied on by him is extracted hereunder:

[11] Mr. B. P. Sahu, learned senor counsel for the respondent-Tripura University, submits that the interview for SC candidates was already held on 02.12.2024, but due to pendency of the writ petition, the result has not been published yet. Learned senior counsel also submits that, as the petitioner did not have the required administrative experience, he was not found eligible for the UR category of post. However, giving special consideration by the recruitment authority exercising jurisdiction under rule 32 of the Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2023 of Tripura University, relaxation was granted to him and he was asked to compete against SC quota.

[12] Regarding publication of separate merit list of UR candidates, the learned senior counsel, Mr. Sahu, refers to Clause No.31.10 of the Instruction Manual issued by the Ministry of Personal, PG & Pensions in June, 2010 which reads as under:

[13] Learned senior counsel also relies on O.M. No. 27/14/71-Estt.(SCT), dated 30.01.1973 which was published much prior to the said Instruction Manual was issued by the Central Government. As per said O.M. dated 30.01.1973, for the posts filled otherwise than through examination normally, six to seven candidates belonging to the community for which the post is reserved may be called for interview for each reserved vacancy, subject to availability of such candidates fulfilling the qualifications prescribed for the post. It is also noted therein that where the response from the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates is exceptionally good, the recruiting authority may, having regard to the merits of each case, call as many as 10 to 12 candidates of the respective category for each reserved vacancy for purposes of interview/ selection. In fact, this O.M. is not much relevant for dealing with the issues in hand.

[14] Learned senior counsel Mr. Sahu, further relies on another O.M. dated 01.07.1998 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions wherein it is prescribed that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates etc., the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.

[15] It is further contended by Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sahu, that as the petitioner was not eligible for his selection against Un-reserved quota, he cannot now challenge the selection of any other person against the said quota. Moreover, even after selection of respondent no.4 against UR quota, the petitioner without challenging the same participated in the selection process.

[16] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Sahu also relies on a decision of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others versus Sajib Roy [Civil Appeal Nos…… /2025 in connection with SLP(C) Nos.21392-21393/2019] decided on 09.09.2025. The relevant paragraph no. 32 of said decision, as referred by him, is reproduced hereunder:

[17] Learned senior counsel further relies upon another decision of Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in the case of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others, (2007) 8 SCC 644. In paragraph no.14 of the said judgment, the following observations were made:

It may be mentioned, as noted hereinearlier, that the oral interview was conducted by a five-member Interview Committee consisting of (i) Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad; (ii) Prof. Pestonjee, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; (iii) Dr. N.R. Dixit, Director, Som Lalit Institute and visiting faculty of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; (iv) Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Finance); and (v) Chief Auditor, Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad who are all respected persons of the society. The five-member Interview Committee, which consisted of eminent persons of the society, would not have allowed the appellant, who is a technical hand, to appear before them without first satisfying themselves that the appellant had possessed ten years' administrative experience. If the administrative experience shown in the application form could not be treated as a sufficient compliance with the requirement as to ten years' experience on the administrative side, the Interview Committee, being an expert committee, could have rejected the candidature of the appellant on the ground that he did not possess the requisite administrative experience for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager in the Corporation. That apart, on the question of administrative experience of the appellant, who was working as an x-ray technician, no objection was raised either by the examination committee which conducted the written examination or by the interview board which conducted the oral interview. Even the candidates, namely, writ petitioner-Respondents 2 and 3 herein did not raise any objection, by making a prayer, either before the examination committee or before the interview board, that the appellant lacked the requisite administrative experience for selection to the post in question. After scrutinising and considering the application forms of all the candidates, they were directed to appear in the written test and thereafter, those who were found to have passed the written examination were directed to appear before the interview board for an oral interview.

[18] In reply to the submissions of Mr. Sahu, learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel argues that in the recruitment rules there is no such mention of any criteria that five years of experience should be administrative experience and therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not have requisite administrative experience is unacceptable.

[19] Mr. Ankit Singh for the respondent no.4 also argues in the similar line with Mr. Sahu, Ld. Counsel and also relies on some decisions which will be discussed in the relevant paragraphs.

[20] In the light of the rival contentions, the following points emerge for decisions in this case:

[21] It is contended from the side of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 did not have the requisite experience in the equivalent post of Asstt. Registrar and similarly, the respondents contend that the petitioner did not possess requisite experience of such equivalent post. Both the parties have laid their much of the weight on this issue in their respective submissions. Therefore, this issue is being discussed first.

[22] Mr. Roy Barman relies on a decision of full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Girija Shankar Shukla (supra). In said case, the issue involved was that as per the provision of M.P. Municipalities Act, it was the Collector to convene a meeting for election of President and Vice President of the Municipal Council. During the relevant period, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Harda was holding the current charge of the Collector who presided over the meeting in which election of President and Vice President of the council was made. Challenge was made accordingly in the High Court on one of the grounds that the meeting was not presided over by the Collector and, therefore, it was not a valid election. Finally High Court observes that there is a clear distinction between the several functions that may be performed by an incumbent of a post and the origin and nature of the power in each case has to be examined before deciding whether it can be exercised only by a person holding that rank or it could be exercised even by a person holding the current charge of the duties of that post. The Court also relies on two decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases of Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1619 and Hari Chand v. Batala Engineering Co., AIR 1969 SC 483 and observes the followings in paragraph nos. 16 and 17:

As extracted earlier, Hon‟ble Mr. Justice S.M.N. Raina in that contexts in His Lordship‟s supplementing note observes that the distinction between an officer holding a particular post and an officer holding the current charge of that post is much greater than that between an officer holding a particular post and another officer invested with all the powers attached to that post. An order appointing a particular officer to hold current charge of the duties is an administrative order intended to clothe such officer with all administrative powers which have no statutory basis. An officer appointed to hold the current charge of the duties of higher post cannot exercise the statutory powers attached to that post unless there is a statutory provision to this effect.

[23] Mr. Ankit Singh, Ld. Counsel relies on a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of S.B. Patwardhan & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 399. In said case, the involved issue was different from the case in hand. It was a dispute concerning seniority in service between two groups of Deputy Engineers with reference to a resolution of Government of Bombay embodying the rules of recruitment to Bombay Service of Engineers Class I and Class II. The competing groups were promotes on one hand the direct recruits on the other. In said case while dealing with such controversies, it was held in sum and substance that the period of a person working on officiating basis as Deputy Engineer should be taken into count for determining seniority with the persons employed through direct recruit. The relevant paragraph no.39 containing the relevant discussions are reproduced below:

If officiating Deputy Engineers belong to Class II cadre as much as direct recruits do and if the quota system cannot operate upon their respective confirmation in that cadre, is there any valid basis for applying different standards to the members of the two groups for determining their seniority? Though drawn from two different sources, the direct recruits and promotees constitute in the instant case a single integrated cadre. They discharge identical functions, bear similar responsibilities and acquire an equal amount of experience in their respective assignments. And yet clause (iii) of Rule 8 provides that probationers recruited during any year shall in a bunch be treated as senior to promotes confirmed in that year. The plain arithmetic of this formula is that a direct recruit appointed on probation, say in 1966, is to be regarded as senior to a promote who was appointed as an officiating Deputy Engineer, say in 1956, but was confirmed in 1966 after continuous officiation till then. This formula gives to the direct recruit even the benefit of his one year's period of training and another year's period of probation for the purposes of seniority and denies to promotes the benefit of their long and valuable experience. If there was some intelligible ground for this differentiation bearing nexus with efficiency in public services, it might perhaps have been possible to sustain such a classification. It is interesting that time and again the State Governments themselves found it difficult to justify the hostile treatment accorded to the promotes. In various affidavits filed on their behalf, entirely contradictory contentions were taken, sometimes in favour of the promotes and sometimes in favour of direct recruits. Instead of adopting an intelligible differentia, Rule 8(iii) leaves seniority to be determined on the sole touchstone of confirmation which seems to us indefensible. Confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies. A glaring instance widely known in a part of our country is of a distinguished member of the judiciary who was confirmed as a District Judge years after he was confirmed as a Judge of the High Court. It is on the record of these writ petitions that officiating Deputy Engineers were not confirmed even though substantive vacancies were available in which they could have been confirmed. It shows that confirmation does not have to conform to any set rules and whether an employee should be confirmed or not depends on the sweet will and pleasure of the government.

[24] Mr. Singh, Ld. Counsel also relies on another decision of a single Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Sanjeev Batish v. State of Haryana & ors. [CWP-10291-2023 (O & M) decided on 21.11.2024. In this case, as per the provisions of the Haryana Service of Engineers, Group A, Public Health Engineering Department Act, 2009, the eligibility for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was 08 years experience in the feeder post of Sub-divisional Engineer and also passing of a departmental examination. The petitioner before his regular promotion to the post of Sub-divisional Engineer, for certain period was assigned with current duty charge of the post of Sub-divisional Engineer which was not counted towards his eligibility for the next promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The High Court relying on several decision of said Court and also of Hon‟ble Supreme Court observes that the Rules provides that 08 years of completed service as Sub-divisional Magistrate but it does not provide that regular 08 years of service is required for promotion, therefore, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer by counting the service rendered by him as Sub Divisional Engineer as current duty charge basis. The said Ld. Bench relied on another decision of Division Bench of the High Court in case of Chandigarh Administration vs. Vipin Gupta and Another., 2011(2) SCT 560 which was also upheld by Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in said case observes that once an employee has gained experience of working on ad-hoc or regular basis then requirement of the rule stands satisfied. As long as a person has earned the experience of working on teaching post like Lecturer or Senior Lecturer then such an experience cannot be ignored and on that basis the petitioner count not have been non-suited from consideration for promotion.

[25] Relevantly, in the contexts of the present case, another decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmishankar Mishra & Ors., equivalent citation- (1979)3 SCR 630 suits a useful reference. Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Local Authorities School Teachers (Absorption in Government Service) Rules, 1963 prescribes that for absorption to the post of Head Master/Principal of a High/Higher Secondary School, the person concerned should possess the post graduate degree and should have worked on the post for a minimum period of 7 years in the same institution and should have 10 years‟ teaching experience in any recognized institution of Madhya Pradesh. Hon‟ble Supreme Court interpreting the rule held that the language used there indicated emphasis on work being done while on the post irrespective of „the capacity‟. The absorption of a person as Principal under rule 3(b) did not depend on the rank but on the nature of functions and duties that an incumbent discharged for a particular number of years i.e. the duties of a Principal for a period of 07 years. Therefore, while computing the period of 07 years for the purpose of said rule, what was determinative was performing duties and discharging functions of the post of Head Master/Principal irrespective of the capacity in which the post was held. The decision of M.P. High Court in Girija Shankar Shukla’s was also taken note of by the Apex Court in said case.

[26] Therefore, what appears from the above said decisions is that while examining the issue as to whether for counting of experience for discharging the duty on a particular post, substantive appointment in that post of a person concerned is necessary or not, is required to be examined in the contexts of that issue. There are some functions which as per law or rules are required to be discharged by a person holding a particular rank and not otherwise, and in such cases, the person holding the current charge cannot discharge the same. However, where such functions does not depend on the rank and can be discharged by a person holding current charge, there cannot be any over-emphasis on the rank which the person held at that time.

[27] So far the present case is concerned, the advertisement indicates only gaining of experience, working as Asstt. Registrar or in any equivalent post and does not limit it to holding of any substantive or regular post. Therefore, the period of working as in-charge in the post of Asstt. Registrar or in any equivalent post can be taken into account. The issue raised by the petitioner that the experience of respondent no.4 gained while holding current charge cannot be taken into consideration, is not accepted.

[28] Now, the matter is also required to be examined from another view point to ascertain whether the petitioner has/had requisite experience or not. So far the criteria or essential qualification as embodied in the advertisement is concerned, it states “Five years of experience as Assistant Registrar or in equivalent post in the Pay Level 10 and above”. What is meant by equivalent post (whether equivalence in the matter functions and duties of the post of Asstt. Registrar or equivalence in the matter of pay scale) is also not further elucidated therein by restricting such work experience only „in the administrative wing‟. According to respondent University, as the petitioner did not have the administrative experience, the petitioner was given relaxation exercising power under Section 32.1 of Cadre Recruitment Rules of 2023 of Tripura University, for lacking in administrative experience and was considered eligible against SC quota.

[29] From such contention of the University authority, it appears that they are now trying to give some restrictive meaning of the words „equivalent post in the Pay Level-10 and above‟ by referring only to the „equivalent post in the administrative side‟.

[30] In the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85 (para 29), Hon‟ble the Supreme Court held that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Art.14 of the Constitution and the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. When a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. Therefore, such restricted or narrower interpretation of said condition by the University is not permissible when same was not specifically mentioned in the advertisement.

[31] It also transpires that the list of eligible candidates for the post of Deputy Registrar was published on 27.02.2024 wherein the petitioner‟s name appeared as „not eligible‟ both against UR vacancy and against SC vacancy. Thereafter, interview of the candidates against UR category was held and selection of the respondent no.4 was published on 08.11.2024. Then, a notice was issued to him by the Selection Committee on 14.11.2024 to appear before the interview board on 02.12.2024. Immediately thereafter, he has approached the Court by filing this writ petition before appearing said interview Board. As submitted by both the sides, he subsequently appeared before the interview Board as SC candidate and is obviously now waiting for the result of his performance in the interview.

[32] Now coming to the issue of grievance for non-publication of common merit list of both UR and reserved category candidates, the contentions made by the respondents are required to be looked into first. To justify separate publication of merit list for UR candidates, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sahu relies on OM No.27/14/71-Estt.(SCT) dated 30.01.1973 as discussed above. Said memorandum conveys the instruction to hold the interview of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates on a separate day of sitting of the Selection Committee so that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates are not judged in comparison with general candidates. Mr. Sahu, learned senior counsel also relies on another office memorandum No.36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998 of Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pensioners, Department of Personnel & Training, which clarifies that only such SC/ST/OBC category of candidates who are selected on the same standard, as applied to general candidates, shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies; in other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC, ST & OBC candidates, such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.

[33] Similarly, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sahu further bank upon another office memorandum No.36011/6/2010-Estt. (Res) dated 25.06.2010 enclosing a compendium on Reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes in services and Clause-22.1 of the said compendium stipulates that the SC, ST & OBC candidates in case of direct recruitment and SC & ST candidates in case of promotion, who are appointed on their own merit without getting benefit of reservation should not be shown against reserved quota and they have to be adjusted against unreserved quota. Said Clause-22.1 is also extracted hereunder for useful reference:

[34] Further, Clause-31.10 of said compendium also contains the guidelines that in case of direct recruitment made otherwise than through examination and in direct recruitment made though examination followed by interview, the interview of schedule caste/scheduled tribe should be done with relaxed standard and not with the standard applicable in case of UR candidate. The relevant Clause-31.10 is reproduced hereunder:

Therefore, it is presumable that the interview of the petitioner as SC candidate is taken under relaxed standard and said performance cannot be considered for selection against UR quota. This may be the reason that the common merit list of both UR category of candidates and reserved category of candidates were not published by the recruiting authority. No rule or guideline could also be shown from the side of the petitioner requiring the selection committee to publish common merit list of both category of candidates. Therefore, such contention of Mr. Roy Barman for publication of common merit list cannot be accepted.

[35] In view of above discussion, it appears that the petitioner is/was entitled to appear in the interview board both against UR quota as well as against SC quota, but standard of interview for both the category would be different. However, as the petitioner has already appeared in the interview meant for SC candidates, therefore, first of all the University Authority is required to publish the result of interview/merit list of SC candidates including the present petitioner in respect of said selection process. In case, the petitioner comes out unsuccessful in the process and again opts for appearing against UR post, he will be given opportunity to appear so. Thereafter, the authority will publish a fresh merit list for UR post.

As a corollary, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The respondent nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 are directed to publish the select list of SC candidates for said post of Deputy Registrar within one week of receipt of copy of this order; ii) In case the petitioner does not come out successful in the said select list, he will be at liberty to submit application to the respondent no.2 within next one week for giving him an opportunity to appear before the interview Board against UR quota;

iii) If the petitioner so opt to appear before the interview Board, his interview will be taken within four weeks from the date of his application and a fresh merit list of UR candidate will be published accordingly within two weeks from the date his interview and in that process, if the University authority is required to cancel the appointment of respondent no.4, they will be at liberty to do so.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending application, if any, shall stands disposed of.