Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Nitish Ranjan Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 9 of 2011
Decided On : 14-02-2014
Caste Status - Scheduled Caste - [Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Section 3(1)(x)] - The court addressed the issue of recording caste status in the service book without mentioning the date of issuance of the caste certificates. It emphasized that a person belongs to a particular caste or community by birth and not by the date of issuance of the certificate. The court directed the official respondents to record the caste status of the petitioner in the service book as belonging to SC community without mentioning the date of the certificate and to consider giving him promotion notionally from the date his juniors were promoted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Graduate Assistant Teacher, belonged to the Mahishya Das community, considered as Scheduled Caste in Tripura. His caste status was not recorded in the service book at the time of joining, leading to his exclusion from promotions. The petitioner sought direction to record his caste status without mentioning the date of issuance of the certificate and to grant him promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's caste status certificate was genuine and had been submitted immediately after issuance. It noted that the petitioner's SC status was known to the authorities, and he was deputed for training as an SC candidate. The court held that the petitioner was deprived of promotion due to the non-entry of his caste status in the seniority list, which was a wrong action by the official respondent.
Issues: The issues involved the recording of caste status in the service book, the petitioner's exclusion from promotions, and the official respondent's obligation to record the petitioner's caste status as belonging to SC community without mentioning the date of the certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a person belongs to a particular caste or community by birth and not by the date of issuance of the certificate. It held that the official respondents were obligated to record the petitioner's caste status as belonging to SC community in his service book without mentioning the date of the certificate.
Final Decision: The court directed the official respondents to record the petitioner's caste status in the service book as belonging to SC community without mentioning the date of the certificate and to consider giving him promotion notionally from the date his juniors were promoted.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.:-Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in short, is that he got offer of appointment as a Graduate Assistant Teacher on 26.08.1987. On 15.10.1987 order of his posting was issued and he finally joined service on 30.10.1987. He belonged to Mahishya Das community, a community considered as Scheduled Caste in the State of Tripura and at the time of joining the service, he submitted a Certificate dated 29.02.1986 (Annexure A/1 to the writ petition) issued by his local MLA that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community being a member of 'Mahisya Das' community but that Certificate was not accepted by the respondent No. 3 and therefore, his caste status was not recorded as a Scheduled Caste at the time of entering into service. Since he belonged to very poor family, having no other members in the Govt. service, immediately joined the service and since his Caste status Certificate issued by the MLA was not accepted, he was compelled to write caste status as 'others' at the time of entering in the service. On 26.11.1997 Sub Divisional Officer (for short, SDO), Dharmanagar issued a caste status Certificate (Annexure A/5 to the writ petition) in the name of the petitioner and he immediately submitted it to the authority and it was accordingly accepted by the authority and was entered in the service book. Considering him as a Scheduled Caste category candidate, he was deputed for B.Ed training vide memo dated 11.06.1998 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and in that deputation order he was clearly shown as a person belonging to SC community and at that time, he was posted at Paschim Panisagar High School. On 20.06.2007 respondent No. 3 directed concerned Inspector of School to record SC status of the petitioner in his service book w.e.f. 26.11.1997 i.e. the date of issuance of SC certificate by SDO, Dharmanagar.
A final interse seniority list of Graduate Assistant Teacher/Classical Teacher/Hindi Teacher/Hindi Pracharak/H.M.(Pry) was prepared and published on 25.08.2007 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) by respondent No. 3 and in that final interse seniority list, the position of the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 2920 but the fact that he belonged to SC community was not reflected in the said final interse seniority list (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 was bound to record the caste status of the petitioner in the service book without mentioning any particular date thereof since a person belonged to a particular caste by birth and not by the date of issuance of certificate thereof. He has also contended that since by Memo dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) the respondent No. 3 directed to record caste status of the petitioner, in the interse seniority list, which was prepared on 25.08.2007, his caste status ought to have been reflected in the seniority list and for not mentioning the caste status in the seniority list, he was deprived of promotion to the superior post.
It is alleged by the petitioner that a DPC meeting was held on 23.05.2008 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) and the DPC recommended 650 candidates of general category, 291 candidates of ST category and 199 candidates of SC category for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress of High School, Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress of Sr. Basic School and Deputy Inspector of School etc. Though respondent Nos. 4 to 76 belonging to the SC community were juniors to the petitioner but they were promoted to the promotional posts on the recommendation of the DPC held on 23.05.2008 but the petitioner's name though was above those private respondents in the interse final seniority list was not considered for promotion since his SC status was not recorded in the final seniority list. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 was heading the DPC and the respondent deliberately and intentionally did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
