HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WA NO.157 OF 2023 Dr. Indrajit Das.

…… Appellant(s Versus The State of Tripura and ors.

.......Respondent(s For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Mr. K. Nath, Advocate. Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.

Ms. S. Debbarman, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.

Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.

Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 23.04.2025.

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

(T. AMARNATH GOUD,J)

This present writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.509 of 2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement dated 11.02.2022 for filling up the post of Basic Teacher in AGMC & GBP Hospital in the Anesthesiology Department, the petitioner submitted his candidature. After considering his documents, the provisional merit list was published vide Notification dated 11.01.2023. However, the said list contained some mistakes, and accordingly, a final merit list was published vide Notification dated 25.04.2023. After the publication of the final merit list, the respondents did not issue any appointment letter, and subsequently, vide the impugned Notification dated 05.08.2023, the respondent No.2 published a revised final merit list, in which the name of the petitioner appeared below that of the private respondents. In the revised final merit list, no marks were awarded to the petitioner under the head of difficult/remote area service, even though he had served in Khedacherra PHC for three and a half years, on the ground that he served in Khedacherra prior to the issuance of the notification dated 07.07.2018. Hence, he filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 19.10.2023. The appellant-petitioner has, therefore, filed this instant writ appeal seeking to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.509 of 2023.

3. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner, as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., along with Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents, and Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Roy Barman, appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant served at Khedacherra PHC, which has been officially classified as a rural area in the Government Notification dated 07.07.2018. A confirmation to this effect has also been issued by the concerned Director. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the respondents in the writ petition argue that since the relevant rule providing weightage for rural service came into effect only in 2018, the appellant's prior service in Khedacherra PHC from August 2007 to February 2011 should not be considered for such weightage. The learned Single Judge accepted this argument, holding that the benefit cannot be applied retrospectively. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Senior Counsel, contends that this reasoning is flawed. He submits that the hardship and rural nature of Khedacherra PHC existed during the appellant's tenure, and these conditions did not change merely because a formal notification came later. The character and difficulty level of the posting remained the same both before and after the rule’s enactment. Therefore, denying the appellant the 30% weightage solely because his rural service occurred before 2018 is unjustified. His tenure in the rural and difficult PHC spanned 3 years and 6 months, and he should rightfully be entitled to the weightage benefit.

5. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submits that the Notification dated 07.07.2018 of the Department of Health & Fam