SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Tri) 43

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ.
Usha Ranjan Debbarma S/o Shri Ramendra Debbarma – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
WP (C) No. 11 of 2022
Decided On : 28-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: B.N. Majumder, Sajit Chandra Sen, B. Paul.
For the Respondents: Debalay Bhattacharya, P. Roy Barman, D. Paul.

Headnote:(A) Tripura Promotion Policy - Procedural Fairness - Writ petition seeking promotion to Supervisor (Panchayat) from 06.01.2017 rejected on grounds of misplaced documentation and promotion list inaccuracies - The court reiterated the necessity of correcting the seniority list and facilitating promotions based on proper qualifications, directing that promotion and seniority be restored if the candidate was unjustly overlooked. (Paras 1, 10, 14)

(B) Procedural Justice - The court underscored that administrative errors causing disadvantage to employees must be rectified in adherence to principles of fairness and transparency. (Paras 14-16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having held a position since 2003, sought promotion to a supervisory role, asserting his qualifications were misrepresented in official records leading to exclusion from promotion lists dated 06.01.2017. The petitioner’s qualifications were eventually acknowledged in the final seniority list published on 14.12.2021.

Findings of Court:
The court found the promotion process flawed due to administrative oversight and directed the rectification of the petitioner’s seniority and consideration for promotion from that date with consequential benefits.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner’s qualifications were accurately reflected in the seniority list and the ramifications of administrative inaction for promotion eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that failure to correct an employee’s qualifications in official records constitutes an unlawful impairment of their right to promotion, mandating rectification and adherence to fair administrative protocols.

Result: Writ petition allowed and instructions issued to remedy the oversight.

Table of Content
1. promotion claims and qualifications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding promotions. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
3. court's findings on petitioner's claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. direction for restoration of seniority. (Para 15)
5. conclusion and disposal of writ petition. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sajit Chandra Sen and Mr. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 4.

2. Writ petition was filed with a prayer to command the respondents to issue promotion order in favour of the petitioner to the post of Supervisor (Panchayat)/Auditor w.e.f. 06.01.2017. Petitioner also prayed for consequential benefits including arrears from the date his juniors have been promoted to the post of Supervisor (Panchayat)/Auditor, i.e. 06.01.2017. Petitioner also asked for restoration of his seniority over private respondents No. 3 to 8.

3. In short, the case of the petitioner is that after having been appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary on a fixed pay basis on 21.07.2003, petitioner was subsequently absorbed permanently in the year 2008 and has been rendering his service efficiently and diligently to the full satisfaction of the authority. The petitioner applied for a “No Objection Certificate” for appearing in the Secondary Examination conducted by the National Open School in the year 2010 which was conceded. No Objection Certificate was issued on 08.11.2010 and thereafter petitioner appeared in the examination and passed the Madhyamik Examination successfully. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for recording his Madhyamik Pass qualification in the Service Book to the Block Development Officer (BDO, for short), Jampuijala R.D. Block where he was posted. His prayer was reportedly forwarded by the BDO, Jampuijala R.D. Block to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 26.08.2011. The copy of No Objection Certificate dated 08.11.2010 and cover letter of BDO, Jampuijala R.D. Block addressed to the Director of Panchayat are enclosed as Annexure-2 & 3 respectively.

4. In the year 2013 again the petitioner applied for No Objection Certificate for appearing in the Senior Secondary Examination from National Institute of Open School in the year 2013 as an external candidate and No Objection Certificate was issued on 01.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner successfully passed the Senior Secondary Examination and similar prayer for recording the said qualification in the Service Book was submitted. It was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 by the BDO, Jampuijala R.D. Block vide letter dated 11.09.2013. Annexure-4 is the No Objection Certificate dated 01.03.2013.

5. A Draft Seniority list of Panchayat Secretary was published on 23.03.2016 wherein the petitioner's name occurred at serial No. 950 and was shown as “Madhyamik Plucked” erroneously. Petitioner then submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 for correction of his educational qualification as mentioned in the draft seniority list of 14.07.2016 which was received by the respondent No. 2. However, till date no final seniority list has been published. Therefore, his name continued as “Madhyamik Plucked” in the draft seniority list. Copy of the objection petition against the draft seniority list is enclosed as Annexure-5. Copy of the draft seniority list dated 23.03.2016 is annexed as Annexure-6.

6. According to the petitioner, as per the draft seniority list, Shri Sanjit Debbarma, Shri Radhakrishna Debbarma, Shri Milan Chandra Tripura and Shri Sukurai Debbarma were all junior to the petitioner. Similarly, Shri Dipankar Debbarma, Shri Malin Debbarma and Shri Surajit Debbarma were all senior to the petitioner but they were Madhyamik plucked. Vide order dated 06

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top