Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Mrinal Kanti Datta, S/o Lt. Manindra Kumar Datta – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura, Represented by its Principal Secretary - Respondents
WP(C) 444 OF 2011, WP(C) 88 OF 2015
Decided on : 18-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate, Mr. D.K.Biswas, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Chakraborty, Addl.G.A., Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate, Mr. A. Lodh, Advocate, Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate. Mr.P. Roy Barman, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Recruitment Rules and qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal must be in line with the standard of the institution. Additionally, registration under Act No.34 of 1992 is compulsory for the appointment as Principal.
Headnote:
Constructive Res Judicata - Recruitment Rules Amendment - Registration under Act No.34 of 1992 - Review DPC - [WP(C) 444 of 2011] - [Educational Qualification, Recruitment Rules] - [15.02.1984, 21.09.2011, 21.07.2014] - The court directed the respondents to amend the Recruitment Rules for the appointment of Principal of IVH Higher Secondary School within six months. It also directed the respondents to consider the eligibility of the current principals for the post of Principal after the amendment. The court further directed the current principals to register their names in accordance with the provisions of Act No.34 of 1992 within six months. If they failed to do so, the official respondents were directed to take appropriate action. Additionally, the court directed the respondents to hold a review DPC for the petitioner's promotion to the post of Principal within 60 days after the finality of the judgment in WP(C) 203/09.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed two writ petitions challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 as Principal of IVH Higher Secondary School. The petitioner sought various reliefs including the quashing of appointments, promotion to the post of Principal, and arrear amounts. The petitioner had been appointed as a Blind Educator in 1992 and was seeking regularization of his service and seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Recruitment Rules for the appointment of Principal were meant for a High School level, and the appointment of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 as Principal of the Higher Secondary School was not in conformity with the standard of the institution. The court directed the respondents to amend the Recruitment Rules and consider the eligibility of the current principals after the amendment. The court also directed the current principals to register their names in accordance with the provisions of Act No.34 of 1992 within six months. If they failed to do so, appropriate action was to be taken. Additionally, the court directed the respondents to hold a review DPC for the petitioner's promotion to the post of Principal within 60 days after the finality of the judgment in WP(C) 203/09.
Issues: The issues included whether the Recruitment Rules were suitable for the Higher Secondary School level, whether registration under Act No.34 of 1992 was compulsory, and whether a review DPC should be held for the petitioner's promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Recruitment Rules needed to be amended to reflect the standard of the Higher Secondary School. It also held that registration under Act No.34 of 1992 was compulsory for the appointment as Principal. The court further held that a review DPC should be held for the petitioner's promotion after the finality of the judgment in WP(C) 203/09.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to amend the Recruitment Rules, consider the eligibility of the current principals, and hold a review DPC for the petitioner's promotion within specified timeframes.
Both the writ petitions, mentioned above, were heard together on the prayer of learned counsel both side since the facts narrated and the points involved as well as the material parties in both the writ petitions were same and hence, this common judgment is passed which shall govern both the writ petitions.
2. WP(C) 444 of 2011 is taken up as the lead case and the documents annexed in that writ petition are referred in the judgment hereunder.
3. By filing WP(C) 444 of 2011, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue Rule upon the Official Respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not transmit all records relating to this case of the petitioner; and
(ii) As to why a Writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing the recommendations issued by Respondent No.9 (Annexure O & P) recommending the names of respondent No.10 & 11 to be eligible candidate to appoint as principal of IVH H.S.(+2) stage and concurrence issued by Respondent No.8 (Annexure T) for appointment of Respondent No.10 & 11 to the post of IVH H.S.(+2) stage declaring the same as violative of mandatory provisions of DPC’s to be followed, and
(iii) As to why Writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the notifications No.F.20(39)DSWE/ESTT/96/2796(9) dated 21-9-2011 and No.F.20(43)DSWE/ESTT/96/2795(9) dated, 21-9-2011 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure U & V) to the writ petition declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Recruitment Rules; and
(iv) As to why writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the official respondents asking them as to why the Recruitment Rules of Headmaster/ Headmistress of H.S. Schools/District Inspector of Schools issued by the Under Secretary, Education department, Government of Tripura and Respondent No.4 (Annexure F) shall not be applicable to appoint Principal of IVH, H.S.(+2) stage School in absence of any Recruitment Rules issued for appointment of Principal of IVH H.S.(+2) stage School; and
(v) As to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent No.2 and 7 to appoint/promote the petitioner to the post of Principal of IVH, H.S.(+2) stage, (Boys), Narsingarh, instead of Respondent No.10 as the petitioner is the senior most Blind Educator having 19 years experience and fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed/promoted in the said post;
(vi) As to why such other order or orders, relief/relieves should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioner and upon causes shown to make the Rule absolute.
4. Again by filing WP(C) 88 of 2015, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
I. Issue Notice upon the Respondents.
II. Call for the relevant records.
III. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Promotion granted to the Private Respondents in the post of Principal, I.V.H (Boy’s), Narsinghar and I.V.H. (Girl’s), Narsinghar shall not be quashed and as to why the Private Respondents shall not be reverted to the post of Blind Educator under the Respondent Department.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a direction mandating the Respondents to send proposal for Review D.P.C. to the Gr. A Departmental Promotional committee by preparing Revised Zone of consideration of Blind Educators on the basis of Revised Seniority List dated 21st July, 2014 from the year 2007-2008 and to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal, Institute for the Visually Handicapped (Boy’s), Narsinghar w.e.f April, 2007 with all consequential monitory relief, SHALL NOT BE ISSUED.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the remaining arrear amount & T.A/D.A for the training period of the petitioner shall not be granted in favour of the Petitioners as per the judgment and order dated 19.03.2014 passed in W.P(C) No.203 of 2009.
IV. And after
