2016 Supreme(Tri) 50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA & S.C. DAS, JJ.
Smt. Bijaya Bhattacharya – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 172, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424 of 2015
Decided On : 26-02-2016

The de-reservation of posts for Assistant Professors in various degree colleges in Tripura was illegal and the selection process followed by the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) for filling up these posts was not transparent, objective, and credible.

Headnote:

The judgement deals with the legality of the de-reservation of posts for Assistant Professors in various degree colleges in Tripura and the selection process followed by the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) for filling up these posts. The Court held that the de-reservation of posts was illegal and the selection process was not transparent, objective, and credible.

Fact of the Case:

The Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 150 permanent posts of Assistant Professor (Group-A Gazetted) in Degree colleges. These 150 posts were spread over 30 different subjects. The number of posts in each subject is as follows: S. No. Name of Subjects/disciplines No. of Posts 1 Library & Information Science 02 2 Bio Chemistry 02 3 Arabic 04 4 Microbiology 02 5 English 10 6 Bengali 10 7 Education 10 8 Philosophy 07 9 History 10 10 Pol. Science 05 11 Bio. Technology 02 12 Physics 05 13 Mathematics 05 14 Chemistry 05 15 Zoology 08 16 Botany 08 17 Physiology 08 18 Environmental Science 07 19 Economics 05 20 Physical Education 08 21 Sanskrit 04 22 Psychology 02 23 Geography 05 24 Hindi 03 25 Sociology 03 26 Information Technology 02 27 CSE 02 28 Statistics 02 29 Commerce 03 30 Defense Studies 01 In the advertisement, it was mentioned that all posts are grouped for the purpose of reservation and shall not be segregated subject-wise for identification of a particular post for a particular category against any subject/discipline. The reservation of the posts should have been made subject-wise. It is urged that in case these posts are not reserved subject-wise, there is uncertainty as to which post is reserved and which is unreserved and it is also contended that there are some departments where only reserved category candidates have been appointed not on the basis of merit but on the basis of reservation and efficiency in these departments is adversely affected when the reservation exceeds 50% in each department. This petition was filed on 10.7.2015 before the process of interviews had started.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the de-reservation of posts was illegal and the selection process was not transparent, objective, and credible. The Court directed the TPSC to prepare the API scores of the candidates in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the UGC and to call only the topmost 5 candidates for interview where there is only one vacant post, 8 most meritorious candidates as per API scores if there are two vacancies and three times the number of vacancies in all other cases. The candidates shall be called strictly as per the merit in the API scores. The TPSC may then conduct an interview for 20 marks as per Table-II(c) of Appendix-III of UGC regulations in which all the members of the interview board shall separately award marks and not grades. The entire exercise be completed within 3(three) months from today.

Issues: 1. Whether the de-reservation of posts was legal? 2. Whether the selection process was transparent, objective, and credible?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the de-reservation of posts was illegal because it was done without following the proper procedure laid down in the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 2. The Court held that the selection process was not transparent, objective, and credible because the TPSC did not follow the UGC regulations for the selection of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the selection of the candidates who had been selected and directed the respondents to abide by the directions given by the Court.