Partly allowed

Chandan Debnath v. State Of Tripura And Ors.

Tripura HC11 Sept 2017WP(C)/398/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Privately combining two writ petitions, the court rejected claims regarding service rules without prior authority but directed the Director of Agriculture to consider absorptions for petitioners into Junior Engineer Degree posts against existing vacancies. No extra cost was to be incurred for this notional declaration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation for absorption against vacancies within one month; respondents to pass order within another month; to be accommodated as Degree Holders without any addition

Chandan Debnath Vs State Of Tripura And Ors. — Service and Employment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 WP(C) 398 OF 2013

¶4

WP(C) 397 OF 2013

¶5

1. Sri Priti Bhajan Chowdhury, son of late Bhuban Mohon Chowdhury, Mukta Kutir, 30, Dhaleswar, P.O. Agartala College, PIN 799004, District:West Tripura

¶6

2. Sri Mrinal Kanti Pandit,

¶7

son of late Gaya Chand Pandit, Road No.17, P.O. Dhaleswar, PIN 799007, Agartala, District: West Tripura

¶8

3. Sri Anil Sarkar,

¶9

son of late Surendra Chandra Sarkar, P.O. Kunjaban, PIN 799006, Qtr. Type-III/19, Block No.11, Agartala, District:west Tripura …. Petitioners

¶10

- Vs –

¶11

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, P.O. Secretariat, PIN 799010, District: West Tripura

¶12

2. The Director of Agriculture, Krishi bhavan, P.O. Agartala, PIN 799001, District: West Tripura

¶13

3. The Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, P.O. Agartala, PIN 799001, District: West Tripura

¶14

4. The Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission, P.O. Agartala, PIN 799001, District: West Tripura.

¶15

… Respondents WP(C) 398 OF 2013

¶16

1. Sri Chandan Debnath, son of Sri Prem Chand Debnath, Vill: Patunagar, P.O. Durjoynagar, PIN 799009, Agartala, District: West Tripura

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶19

¶20

…. Petitioner

¶21

Vs –

¶22

1. The State of Tripura,

¶23

represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Agriculture, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, P.O. Secretariat, PIN 799010, District: West Tripura

¶24

2. The Director of Agriculture,

¶25

Krishi bhavan, P.O. Agartala, PIN 799001, District: West Tripura

¶26

3. The Chief Engineer, Department of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, P.O. Agartala, PIN 799001, District: West Tripura

¶27

4. The Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission, P.O. Agartala, PIN 799001, District: West Tripura

¶28

… Respondents

¶29

BEFORE

¶30

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA

¶31

For the petitioners	: Mr. C.S.Sinha, Advocate.
For the respondents	: Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment
& Order.	: 11.09.2017
Whether fit for reporting	: No

¶32

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

¶33

Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶35

2. Both the writ petitions being WP(C) No.397 of 2013 [Sri Priti Bhajan Chowdhury & 2 Ors. Vrs. The State of Tripura & 3 Ors.] and WP(C) No.398 of 2013 [Sri Chandan Debnath Vrs. The

¶36

Page 2 of 8

¶37

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶38

¶39

State of Tripura & 3 Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the grievance expressed and the reliefs prayed in these writ petitions are exactly identical except some variation of facts regarding their service. However, those variations are not at all relevant in the present context.

¶40

3. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have asked this Court (1) to interfere with the final seniority list of the Junior Engineer (Civil) Diploma Holder published under Memorandum No. F.2(169)-Agri/Estt/93-94/11080-11119 dated 07.11.2013 and (2) directing the respondents to appropriately amend the Recruitment Rules, 2010 for the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I [Civil/Mechanical/Electrical/Agri-Engineering], Department of Agriculture, government of Tripura published under Notification No.F.2(14)-Agri/Estt/2004-05/4812-95 dated 04.05.2011, even though the prayer has been made to declare the said recruitment rules as unreasonable, but Mr. Sinha has submitted that from a cumulative reading of the reliefs it would appear that relief is for accommodating the appropriate clause in the said recruitment rules. It has been further urged for commanding the respondents to incorporate the names of the petitioners in the final seniority list of the Jr. Engineer (Civil) Degree Holder Grade-I published by the Memorandum dated 07.11.2013 on the basis of their acquisition of the degree of Engineering/Technology they have obtained in-service. Even the petitioners have challenged the office orders by which they were permitted to go for higher study subject to certain conditions.

¶41

Page 3 of 8

¶42

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶43

¶44

4. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioners have obtained the degrees of B.Tech. and Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical Engineering) in the year 2010 from the J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed-to-be) University and the Tripura University. Immediately after obtaining the said degree, the petitioners placed the said degree in the service record for making appropriate entry therein. In terms of the above, vide by the office order dated 11.07.2010 [Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.397 of 2013] and the office order dated 01.09.2011 [Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.398 of 2013] the Director of Agriculture passed the direction to authenticate and to record the enhanced qualification of the petitioners in the service book as well as in the service particulars. By the Memorandum dated 07.11.2013 [Annexure 11 to the Writ Petition being WP(C) No.397 of 2013] the final seniority list to the Grade of Jr. Engineer (Civil) Diploma holder Grade-I (Group-B NonGazetted) and Diploma holder Grade-II (Group-C Non-Gazetted) were published where the name of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 in WP(C) No. 397 of 2013 appear in Sl. No.9 and 17 showing that they had entered in the service as the Jr. Engineer(Civil) Diploma holder Grade-II on 15.03.1984 and 25.02.1987 and thereafter they were promoted/moved to the Jr. Engineer (Civil) Diploma holder Grade-I on 15.03.1988 and 25.02.1991 respectively. Similarly, the writ petitioner in WP(C) 398 of 2013 was also shown in the tentative seniority list published in the Grade of Jr. Engineer (Mechanical) Diploma holder Grade-I (Group-B Non Gazetted) and Diploma holder Grade-II (Group-C Non Gazetted) published by

¶45

Page 4 of 8

¶46

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶47

¶48

Memorandum dated 07.11.2013 [Annexure 10 to the Writ petition No. 398 of 2013] at Sl. No.15 showing that the petitioner had first entered in the service as the Jr. Engineer (Mechanical) Diploma holder Grade-II on 10.03.1987 and he was promoted/moved to the post of Jr. Engineer (Mechanical) Diploma holder Grade-I on 29.12.1991.

¶49

5. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 398 of 2013 has obtained the degree on 30.06.2011 whereas the petitioners in WP(C) No. 397 of 2013 obtained the degree of B.Tech in Civil Engineering in September, 2010.

¶50

6. The grievances of the petitioners fall in a short compass. The respondents did not consider their higher qualification for absorbing them in the appropriate grade meaning as the Jr. Engineer [Degree Holder] and for entering their name in the seniority list of the Jr. Engineer [Degree Holder] Grade-I for purpose of affording them the benefits in the service.

¶51

7. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no such rule to accommodate the petitioners as the Jr. Engineers (Degree Holder) simply for their acquisition of the degree of engineering or technology in-service. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further submitted that while allowing them for prosecuting higher studies by the office order No. F.2-5761(P)/12026-28 [Annexure 4(b) to the Writ Petition No.397 of 2013] dated 11.04.2008 or the similar order, the following conditions inter alia was imposed by the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Tripura.

¶52

Page 5 of 8

¶53

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶54

¶55

“3. His higher study does not make him eligible for any higher Post/promotion.”

¶56

This order has also been challenged by the writ petitioners in these writ petitions. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee the writ petitioners have acted on the said condition and acquired the said degrees. Now they are estopped to challenge the said condition. Thus, these writ petitions are without any substance and are liable to be dismissed.

¶57

8. It is well entrenched that even the constitutional court cannot direct the executive to frame a subordinate legislation in a particular way. Hence, the prayer for direction to appropriately modify or amend the recruitment rules stands dismissed. Further, having appreciated the submission particularly advanced by Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners this Court finds the two important factors which require consideration viz. (1) there is no rule how a Jr. Engineer (Diploma Holder) would be treated when he acquired the degree of Engineering/Technology in the respective branch and (2) whether in absence of any rule, their case could be considered by the competent authority for their absorption on the basis of their acquired qualification.

¶58

9. What Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted on estoppels, is of unputdownable substance. When the petitioners have acted on a condition and taken the benefit of that, in terms of the office order allowing them to prosecute the higher studies, they can neither challenge the said order nor can take a stand contrary

¶59

Page 6 of 8

¶60

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶61

¶62

to the said condition. Therefore, this challenge is bound to fall through and it is accordingly discarded.

¶63

10. So far the other two questions formulated by this Court on the basis of the submission of learned counsel are concerned, this Court is of the view that unless there is any rule it would be inhospitable for the appointing authority to take any action on the acquisition of the higher qualification. But in absence of rule, if the competent authority conceded that acquisition of such qualification would enhance the capacity of the officer thus, may absorb the petitioners against the vacancies available at the relevant point of time or the vacancies that may arise. It cannot be denied that the petitioners have already reached to the Grade where a person with the degree of engineering would have been appointed. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to consider whether on the basis of the higher qualification as acquired by the petitioners they can be accommodated by way of absorption as the Jr. Engineer (Degree Holder) against the vacant posts. For this no additional amount is to be spent by the respondents. Only a notional declaration has to be made against the vacancies to accommodate them. In the considered opinion of this court, the appointing authority is permitted to do this and that would serve the public interest.

¶64

11. Having observed thus, the petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation with a copy of this order to the competent authority for such consideration in the light as observed above. If the applications are filed within a period of one months

¶65

Page 7 of 8

¶66

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

¶67

¶68

from today, the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala shall pass the appropriate order having due regard to the observation made above within another month thereafter.

¶69

With this observations and directions, these writ

¶70

petitions are disposed of.

¶71

A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel

¶72

for the parties.

¶73

No order as to costs.

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

WP(C) 397 OF 2013 & WP(C) 398 of 2013

Chandan Debnath v. State Of Tripura And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Debnath v. State Of Tripura And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinki Begam and Anr. Vs Idrish Miah

Sico Environmental Ltd. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Suvajit Paul Vs F.C.I. and Ors.

Kanti Lal Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.

Arati Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.

Nikunja Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.