Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH, JJ.
Yoginder Pal – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Tripura and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1370 of 2019
Decided On : 27-01-2020
APPOINTMENT - TRIPURA JUDICIAL SERVICE - TRIPURA JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES, 2003 - Rule 3, Rule 7, Rule 10, Rule 11 - The judgment discusses the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003, particularly Rule 3, Rule 7, Rule 10, and Rule 11, which govern appointments and promotions to various posts in the Tripura Judicial Service. The court analyzes the selection procedure, eligibility criteria, and the preparation of the select list under the said Rules. It highlights the requirement of minimum marks in the viva-voce test and the grounds for withholding appointment under Rule 11.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought recommendation for appointment to Tripura Judicial Service Grade-I with consequential benefits. He had cleared the written and oral examinations, securing the second position in the merit list against two notified vacancies. Despite meeting the eligibility criteria, the High Court recommended only one candidate for appointment, rejecting the petitioner's representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a legitimate claim to be recommended for appointment, as he had passed the required examinations and no candidate from the reserved categories was available. The court emphasized that the petitioner's non-appointment must be for valid reasons, as specified in Rule 11 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to recommendation for appointment despite being placed second in the merit list against the available vacancies, and the grounds for withholding his appointment as per Rule 11 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment could only be withheld based on the grounds specified in Rule 11, which include possessing good moral character, suitability for appointment, and medical fitness. The court emphasized that the petitioner's suitability had to be based on material on record and that his non-appointment must be for valid reasons.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to recommend the petitioner for appointment to Tripura Judicial Service Grade-I post, which was vacant at the time of the judgment. The State Government was instructed to act on the recommendation within three months.
JUDGMENT :
AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition.
2. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent No. 1, High Court of Tripura should recommend his name to the State Government for appointment to Tripura Judicial Service Grade-I with consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts are as under:
Appointments and promotions to various posts in the Tripura Judicial Service are governed by the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Rules). Rule 3 of the said Rules envisages constitution of a service known as Tripura Judicial Service which would be consisting of 3(three) grades of officers namely Judicial Officers Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III.
4. Rule 7 of the Rules pertains to method of recruitment, qualification, reservation and age limit. Under this Rule Tripura Judicial Service Grade-I posts would be filled up from the following sources:
“Method of Recruitment:
(i) Not exceeding 25% of the posts in the Grade may be filled by direct recruitment on the basis of the aggregate marks/grade secured in a competitive examination conducted by the High Court, as specified in Schedule B of the Rules.
(ii) 65% of the posts in the grade shall be filled by promotion from the cadre of Grade-II of the Service on the basis of merit cum seniority by the High Court following the criteria in Schedule “C.”
(iii) Remaining 10% of the posts in the Grade shall be filled up by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited departmental competitive examination conducted by the High Court as specified in Schedule-B of the Rules.
Provided that if candidates are not available for 10% of seats, or are not able to qualify in the examination then vacant posts shall be filled up by regular promotion.”
5. Rule 10 of the Rules pertains to selection procedure and reads as under:
“10. SELECTION PROCEDURE:-
(1).......
(i) Whenever two or more vacancies required to be filled by direct recruitment occur in a cadre in the service or once in two years, whichever is earlier, the High Court shall invite by advertisement in the official Gazette and in at least two newspapers, applications in such form as it may determine from intending candidates, who possess the prescribed qualifications. The advertisement shall indicate the number of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and shall contain all necessary information relating to the recruitment. It shall also indicate that an additional list of selected candidates would be prepared as per clause (iv).
(ii) The decision of the High Court as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to the written and viva-voce examination shall be final. No candidate to whom certificate of admission has not been issued shall be admitted for the examination.
(iii) The High Court shall on the basis of cumulative grade value secured by a candidate, and taking into consideration the orders, if any, in force relating to reservation of posts for Scheduled Tribes. Scheduled Castes prepare in the order of merit, assessed as provided in Schedule B, a list of selected candidates which shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified.
(iv) The High Court shall, in accordance with the provisions of clause (iii), also prepare an additional list of candidates on merit not included in the list of candidates prepared under clause (iii) above, in which the number of candidates to be included shall, as far as possible be ten percent of the number of vacancies notified for recruitment or one, whichever is higher.
(v) The lists of successful candidates so prepared under clauses (iii) and (iv) above shall be published in at least two newspapers and they shall cease to be operative on the expiry of one year from the date of such publication.
(vi) Candidates whose names are included in the first list prepared under clause (iii
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
