Sukhen Sutradhar vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned counsel along with Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

The principal question to be decided in this case is that whether the petitioner who once appeared and participated in the selection process can challenge the said process of selection to the post of Havildar (clerk) under the State-respondents. The petitioner being an eligible candidate had applied for his transfer to the post of Havildar (Clerk). The petitioner was eligible to be transferred to the said post of Havildar(Clerk). According to the petitioner he fulfilled all the criteria as prescribed in Rule 37 of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, 1984.

For convenience, the said Rule is reproduced herein below in verbitim:-

"Recruitment Rules for the post of Havildar (Clerk):

(i) These posts shall be filled by transfer from amongst general duty Havildar failing which from amongst Naiks, failing which from amongst Lance Naiks and failing which from amongst Riflemen, Who-

(a) are willing for such transfer;

(b) have passed at least matriculation or an equivalent examination;

(c) posses minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typing

(d) have put in at least 2 years service in the Rifles; and

(e) have been approved for such transfer by the Deputy Inspector General.

(2) In case filling up of the posts by method specified in sub-rule(1) is not possible, these posts may be filled by re-employment of ex-services or ex-Central Police Organisation personnel or by direct recruitment.

(3) To be eligible for re-employment, an ex-service or ex-Central Police Organisation personnel shour-

(a) have retired or discharged, not earlier than 24 months of such re-employment in corresponding or higher clerical rank, form formation concerned;

(b) have possessed exemplary or very good character while in previous service;

(c) not have attained the age of 40 years as on 1st day of july of the year in which appointment is made; and

(d) have been approved for such re-employment by the Deputy Inspector General, who may relax any of the conditions specified in this sub-rule, in suitable cases, by order in writing.

(4) Direct Recruitment shall be made from amongst person who-

(a) have passed at least matriculation or an equivalent examination;

(b) have minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typing:

(c) are within age group of 18-25 years as on 1st day of July of the year in which advertisement for recruitment is made;

(d) Possess chest and height measurements as are specified for recruitment as Rifleman in Rule 25:

And

(e) should have qualified in such physical, written and oral tests as may be prescribed by the Inspector-General.

(5) The Deputy Inspector-General may relax, by order in writing any or all the qualifications/conditions specified at item(c) and (d) of sub-rule (4) in suitable cases.

(6) The Board for making the recruitment specified in sub-rule (4) shall consist of the Deputy Inspector-General, Commandant of the Battalion concerned and Deputy Commandant of the Battalion, concerned and when Deputy Commandant is not available the senior most Assistant Commandant of the Battalion, concerned.

(7) The Inspector-General may lay down, by order in writing, the procedure for screening of candidates considered for recruitment under sub-rule (4)

(8) The persons recruited under sub-rule(4) shall be liable to discharge, without compensation, if they fail to complete within 12 months of their recruitment, such training in drill, weapon, office procedure and accounts as may be laid down by the Inspector General of order in writing."

The main challenge of the petitioner is that there is no rule under Rule 37 to conduct written examination to fill-up the post of Havildar (Clerk). In spite of absence of such rules, the State-respondents had forced the petitioner to appear in the written examination.

On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that Rule 37(1)(e) of the TSR (Recruitment Rules), 1984 strictly envisages that for such transfer to the post of Havildar (Clerk) the name of such qualified candidates has to be approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, being the competent authority. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (AP & Ops) being the Chairman of the selection Board committed no error in the course of conducting the test under reference towards selection of candidates for recommendation completely on merit basis.

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., has further submitted that in terms of the Sub-Section (1) Clause (e) of Rule 37 of the TSR (Recruitment) Rules, a written test was conducted to assess the eligibility and proficiency of the candidates in writing for transfer to the post of Havildar (Clerk) which is indispensible before according approval for such transfer. Out of 80 marks, the petitioner only secured 25 marks. More so, the written test was necessary for selection of eligible and meritorious candidates which is required for the said post.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing to the lis and also have considered the factual and legal aspects of the case.

From a bare perusal of Rule 37 of TSR (Recruitment) Rules, it is crystal clear that before selection to the post of Havildar (Clerk) approval of such transfer has to be taken by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The said Deputy Inspector General of Police for fair selection had taken a decision in terms of Rule 37(1)(e) to conduct a written examination. The petitioner participated in the said process without raising any objection. Subsequently, he found that the petitioner did not pass the written test examination and in that circumstance the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the selection process.

It is now well settled that once a candidate participates in the process of selection, having failed he cannot challenge such selection process. Had he been selected then he would not have challenged the said process. Even after appearing in the written test, he did not challenge the said process as adopted by the competent authority and waited for publication of the result.

In my considered view, the Deputy Inspector General of Police being the competent authority did not commit any error to conduct the written examination for selecting appropriate eligible candidates for the post of Havildar (Clerk).

Having held so, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. However, this order shall not create any bar from allowing the petitioner to appear in any further selection process in the post of Havildar (Clerk) or any other post subject to his eligibility as per the Rules applicable.

With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.