Disposed

Tripura Gramin Bank Employees Federation v. the Tripura Gramin Bank and Ors.

Tripura HC24 Aug 2017WP(C)/645/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noted deficiencies in the recruitment process for Office Attendant posts at Tripura Gramin Bank, including a lack of public notice and employment exchange list defects. While the petitioner's locus standi was questioned, the Court directed the bank to publish a notice and reframe the recruitment schedule based on an updated candidate list.

What did the court decide?

The recruitment schedule was readjusted; Tripura Gramin Bank directed to publish a short notice in the newspaper and communicate a reframed schedule to respondents.

Tripura Gramin Bank Employees Federation Vs the… — Service and Employment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2017

¶4

Tripura Gramin Bank Employees Federation , represented by its Secretary, Sri Saptarshi Das Gupta, son of late Dilip Kumar Das Gupta, resident of Badharghat, Tripura Gramin Bank, Head Office Branch, Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus –

¶7

The Tripura Gramin Bank , (A Government Undertaking) Head Office at Abhoynagar, Agartala, represented by its Chairman

¶8

The State of Tripura , represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Employment Services and Manpower Planning Department, New Secretariat, P.O. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura

¶9

The Director , Employment Services and Manpower Planning Department, Agartala, West Tripura

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶13

For the petitioner For respondents no. 1 For respondents no. 2,3 Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment and Order Whether fit for reporting

¶14

: Mr. DK Biswas, Advocate : Mr. A. Roy Barman, CGC

¶15

: Mr. TD Majumder, GA

¶16

: 24.08.2017

¶17

: NO

¶18

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶19

Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. TD Majumder, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

¶20

2. One of the registered Employee’s Association namely Tripura Gramin Bank Employees Federation by filing this writ petition has questioned the adopted manner of notifying the

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2017

¶22

¶23

vacancies for the recruitment to the post of Office Attendant (Multipurpose) under Group ‘C’ category. There is no dispute that by the communication dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), the General Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank made request for sending the names of the eligible candidates who are registered with the employment exchange with their full biodata. The restriction however has been imposed that the number of the candidates shall be restricted to three times the total number of vacancies.

¶24

3. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since no public employment notice has been issued, many deserving candidates could not apply for the said post. According to Mr. Biswas, learned counsel that there is a central legislation called Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 which obliges in the matter of the public employment, public notice in the newspaper or requisition of the eligible candidates from the employment exchanges. That apart, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has submitted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have admitted that there was lot of defects and deficiencies in sending the names of eligible unemployed in response to the requisition. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel has made reference to the following passage appearing in paragraph 6 of the reply filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3:

¶25

“It is fact that at the time of sponsoring the list of candidates to Tripura Gramin Bank, data of registered unemployed/jobseeker in Employment Exchanges were in transition state due to data migration following the transformation of National Employment Service Portal (Employment

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2017

¶27

¶28

Exchange) to National Career Service Portal (Career Centre). So, in preparing the list of candidates maintaining the accurate seniority criteria was a bit difficult. However, it is also made known to the TGB authority that in continuation to this sponsored list, as per GA(P&T), Govt. of Tripura Memo Vide No. F.23(24)-GA(P&T)/95, dated 31.08.2002 in case of any vacancy to be filled up, it is mandatory that employer to give wide publicity through news agency, a copy of the aforesaid Memo GA (P&T), Govt. of Tripura vide No. F.23(24)-GA(P&T)/95, dated 31.08.2002 is enclosed herein and is marked as Annexure R/2 of the affidavit”

¶29

[Emphasis added]

¶30

4. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to approach this court by filing this writ petition. According to him, the registered Employees Union is not authorized to represent those persons who are not their members. By no action, the interest of the members of the petitioner Association has been affected.

¶31

5. This court finds substantive force in the submission of Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel, as the Association has no business to approach this court to propagate the grievance of the unemployed persons. However, in view of the statements made by the respondents no. 2 and 3, this court being a court of records is persuaded to observe that in addition to the requisition Tripura Gramin Bank ought to have published a short notice in the newspaper inviting the application for recruitment in the said from the eligible candidates. Moreover, the Employment Exchange shall furnish a fresh list by removing the deficiency as they themselves have pointed out in their reply. As it has been stated by Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel that the process of scrutiny has just began, there shall be no

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2017

¶33

¶34

difficulty in framing time for accepting the fresh applications based on the public notice published in the well circulated newspaper and the updated list from the Employment Exchange. Hence, the schedule of the recruitment be readjusted by the Tripura Gramin Bank and accordingly that shall be communicated to the respondents no. 2 and 3 for reframing their list after this order.

¶35

6. With this observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Saikat

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 645 of 2017

Tripura Gramin Bank Employees Federation v. the Tripura Gramin Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tripura Gramin Bank Employees Federation v. the Tripura Gramin Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gobinda Majumder Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Subhrangshu Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajan Bhattacherjee Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Manna Ahmed and Ors. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Dipak Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Swapan Bhowmik Vs the State of Tripura and Anr.