IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Shri Ajit Chakraborty - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondents
WP(C) NO. 28 OF 2016
Decided on : 08-02-2017
Examination Rules - Tripura Engineering Service - Rule 11, Rule 4(ii), Rule 11(iv), Rule 11(v) - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 11, Rule 4(ii), Rule 11(iv), and Rule 11(v) of the Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 2009. The court analyzed the conduct of the examination, including the syllabus, negative marking, and minimum qualifying marks, and concluded that the examination and selection process were conducted according to the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners and private respondents were members of Tripura Engineering Service working as Junior Engineers. The petitioners challenged the notification issued by respondent No.3 in respect of the successful candidates, alleging illegalities in the conduct of the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the examination was conducted according to the prescribed rules and procedures. The petitioners participated in the selection process without raising any objections and only challenged the process after being unsuccessful. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the examination and selection process were conducted according to the rules.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged illegalities in the conduct of the examination, including deviation from the rules, negative marking, and minimum qualifying marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process without raising objections, could not subsequently challenge the process after being unsuccessful. The court also emphasized that every statutory authority is bound to deal with their subjects according to the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
This writ petition was taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself on the submission of learned counsel of both side.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioners, learned counsel Mr. J. Majumder for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned counsel Mr. T. Debbarma for respondent No.3 and learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for respondent Nos.4 to 21.
3. The petitioners and respondent No.4 to 21(hereinafter mentioned as, private respondents) were all members of Tripura Engineering Service(For short, TES) working as Junior Engineer(Civil)(Degree holder) in GrV(A). Tripura Engineering Service Rules prescribes provision for promotion to TES GrIV(Civil)(Assistant Engineer) from the post of Junior Engineer(Civil)(Degree holder) by direct recruitment from in service candidates. The Department requested Tripura Public Service Commission(for short, TPSC) for selection of candidates in accordance with the provisions of Combined Competitive Examinations Rules, 2009(for short, Rules of 2009) and to recommend a list of successful candidates to fill up 53 posts of Assistant Engineer, TES(GrIV)(Civil)(GrA Gazetted).
4. Accordingly, respondent No.3 issued advertisement No.09/2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates. A copy of the advertisement marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition Important information contained in that advertisement, for ready reference is quoted, which reads as follows:
“Important information:
(i) The syllabus pattern of the said Competitive Examination will be same as that for Direct Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer, TES Grade-IV as per TES(4th Amendment) Rules, 2007.
(ii) The Exam will be held for one time only.
All eligible TES Grade V(A)(Civil)(Junior Engineer)(Degree Holder) under Public Works Department, Government of Tripura as mentioned above who are desirous of appearing at this Examination are requested to send Advance Copy of application in the prescribed form by the 12th May, 2015 during office hour. The application through proper channel should reach Commission’s Secretariat by 20th May, 2015 during office hour. Application received after the closing date will not be entertained in any case.”
5. The petitioners received programme for the examination to be held on 28.06.2015 and 29.06.2015 and accordingly they appeared in the examination. The examination was conducted, admittedly as per the provisions contained in the Rules of 2009 and that was the Rule of conducting such examination which was mentioned in the advertisement also.
Rule 4(ii) prescribes that the candidates will be selected in order of merit. The provision reads as follows:
“(ii) Selection of candidates will be made in order of merit and according to the number of vacancies available. Due consideration will be given, as far as practicable, to the preferences indicated by a candidate, if any, but the commission reserves the right to allot the candidate to any department or post for which he/she is a candidate on consideration of his/her candidature who has paid application fees as prescribed and fulfilled the terms of advertisement will receive Admit Card and a time table for the examination. The admission will be deemed to be provisional subject to determination of his eligibility in all respects, fitness and number vacancies available.”
6. Rule 11 prescribes the procedures in respect of the written part of the examination. Since it is very important to decide the writ petition, Rule 11, as a whole, is reproduced as follows:
“11. Written part of the examination
(i) The written part of the examination shall consist of 1(one) compulsory subjects and 2(two) optional papers which are as follows:
A. Compulsory
(a) General Studies 100 Marks 1 hour duration
B. Optional(Any two of the following papers) 200 marks in each paper 3 hours duration
(a) Civil Engineer
Ashok Kumar & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069
Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam MANU/SC/0077/2009 : (2009) 3 SCC 227
B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute reported in AIR 1984 SC 363
Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur
Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla
Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. MANU/SC/7287/2008 : (2008) 4 SCC 171
K.H. Siraz Vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395)
Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam
Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar
Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/8040/2007 : (2007) 11 SCC 522
Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486
Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493
Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission
Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors. v. Anil Joshi & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1613[(2013) 11 SCC 309]
Vijay Shankar Panday v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589
Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.