Sanjoy Kr. Bhowmik And Another v. State Of Tripura And 5 ORS.

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA
AGARTALA W.P.(C)No.89of2012 1. SriSanjoyKumarBhowmik,






 

 
  







 
  
 


!"
2. SriBhaskarSarkar,



 
#$

  




 "

%

#
 

&

 


!"














.........Petitioners -Versus- 1.
TheStateofTripura,  "   
'(

)

 


 (
  
& 
*  

!+
" 


!"





% 
) " ,
 '

-$'
 
.
&



 

!"
2. TheSecretary, / " 


!"






% 
) " ,
 '

-$'
 
.
&


&

 

!"
3.TripuraPublicServiceCommission,  "   
'(


 (



 
&
 


 

&
 

&


 

!"
4.



TheDirectorGeneralofPolice,


!"






% 
) " ,
 '

-$'
 
.
&

[2]



 

!"







5.TheJointSecretary,


!", / " 






% 
) " ,
 '

-$'
 
.
&


 

!"
6.SriBidhuBhusanDas, 


0
1 

  




 
 

 
 

% !"
7.SriDebashisDebbarma,







)  
'' 
  

 
!

"
#



 

 

&

&
 

!"
8.




SriRanadebDas, 


- 
#$



#$

  





&
 

&





 


!"
9.




SriKrishnadhanDas,











0' 

  


0(
- 


 
 

&

&





 

!"
10.SriChandiKumarChakma,










!
1 
)  
  

#"


 


 

!"
11.SriPravaRanjanDebbarma,











- 
) 
'' 
  


 

&

&


&
 
2

!"



[3] 12.SriBirendraDebbarma












!
) 
'' 
  




& 


 
& 
 

!"
13.SriSashiMohanDebbarma,











 '' 









  


 "



 
0
  
!"
14.SriAjoyDebbarma,












#
'' 
  





"


 
#'3
 

!"
15.SriSukhomoyChakma,












%(
)  
  



)  
 
 
4 (

 


!"
16.SriSwapanDeb,











) 
- 
'
  



"
 
 
 

!"
........Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA 5

"  

:

1

'
&  







5

 
 " 


:

1

) '(
&
&





  (


0 

 
:20.08.2015




 "
 : Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) / 
1

'
  
 
"" 


"  

 

1

) '(
  
&
&




[4] "" 


 
 " 
%
"" 

 "
 " 
 
  

 
"




[2]

1
) '(
  
&
&

  

  
 
6678976:

" 

 
 
 
6;78976:



'


5
%# 9<= = )=9769

 


 

 )
'(







   
 

' 
   


  
 

"" 


"

>"









 
667;977;


' 
 
"












[3] 1

'
  
 
"" 

 "  

'

 
 

"  
%6

$(
- 

 

"" 

 '>"



 
79696?8:


"  
%9





"" 

 '>"





7?696?8;

'
"  
%6

"  
%9

  
  " 
, 
 "

 (

6?666??@

<6766??:
&



'
"  
 
'

'

  

"" 


"

>"





" 

  



  
 
!

"  

 



 

"  
 


" 
' 
*)+
%97;

977;

 
 
 


  
 

  

 
 

 (


 
""(

 
" 
& 





[5]

 



" 

" 

'(
  
 
68799766


' 

 A
On a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and upon hearing their learned counsel, we are of the view that in the factual premise as narrated hereinabove and in the backdrop of relaxation visGaGvis the upgradation in the academic qualification by the Government vide communication dated 03.08.2007 it would not be wholly out of place for it to have a review of the fact situation as a whole and take an appropriate decision visGaGvis the remaining petitioners as above.

 We feel persuadedtomakethisobservationinview of the fact that before the amendment to the Rules all the petitioners admittedly judged by their educational qualification were eligible for being considered for promotiontothepostofInspectorofPolice in the Department. The amendment to the Rules logically is not their doing and it is because of such a fortuitous circumstance thatatpresentthoughmanyoftheirequally placedcolleaguesareinthehigherranksof theservicetheystagnateatalowerpostin thehierarchy.TheState Governmentwhich is acclaimed to be a model employer therefore, ought not to turn a Nelson's eye tosuchcases.

Theseobservations,however, are dehors any comment on the legality or validity of the amendment and being construed to be warranted in the typical factsandcircumstances. In the above view of the matter, this petition is closed by leaving the State Government at liberty to take an appropriate decision in its discretion to relax the requirement of the academic qualification of graduation for promotion fromthepostSubInspectorofPolicetothat ofInspectorofPoliceintheDepartmentvisG aGvisthepetitionerswhoarestillinthepost ofSubInspectorofPolicewithout,however, creatingaprecedent.




[6] We make it clear that we have not issued any direction to the State Government in thisregardandweleaveitatitsdiscretion to do the needful. As the petitioner wait in expectation, it would be appropriate if the StateGovernmenttakesabefittingdecision withutmostexpedition. Needless to say if the petitioners still remain aggrieved, they would be at liberty to approach this Court or any other appropriateCourtoflawforredress. [4]
>



"
 
 
' 

 
 
68799766

" 
 
  



  
 

 ,

 
B 




  
 


"

>"


*C

& +


 

"" 

 

>"






"

>"







' 
   

 

 
 
%56*@D+7 =7:
 
7<78977;

5
""

    


 ,


 

,  
  A

Theundersignedisdirectedtoreferyouletter No.549/DGP/PS/2007 dated 25th July, 2007 on the above cited subject and to state that Government has decided for one time relaxation of the educational qualification criteria as provided in the newly introduced Common Recruitment Rules so as to enable thePoliceDepartmenttoconsiderthenames of undergraduate SubGInspector of Police while filling up the vacancies that were available before the introduction of Common Recruitment Rules. However, it is also decidedthatthevacanciesthathavearisenin the cadre of Inspector of Police after introduction of the Common Recruitment Rules should be filled up in accordance with the provision of newly introduced Common RecruitmentRules. 2. In view of the above, the undersigned is directed to request you to kindly take necessary action accordingly




[7] under intimation to this Department. The Hon'bleHighCourtmaykindlybeinformedof this decision of the State Government most immediately under a special petition so that promotion to the eligible candidates to the postofInspectormaybeeffected. [5]

(


 
 

 
'(
 
  




 ,


"


  
  
 




"
 

    
'
"

667;977;
 
 
"

 

'
 

  



  
 

 
 

 

>"


  

"  
 " 
, 
 

  



'

 



'(
 )

" 
 
 


  
"




 
"" 

"  
'$ 

 
 
5
 
" 
(
'(

 " 

"" 
 
' 
   

 

 
 

   

:D




6<
   
 
  

)
 (
6<
   
 
  

!
 (

 
<7
   
 
  

C#
 (
 

   

 


 (
 



  
 

' 

 
(
66
   
 

  

  


 (
  
  
 
!


)


" (
  
 
66
   
'
  

:D
   


 
 
' 
   

 

%


"  







[8]

 (

 )

!
!

(


'
  
 
 C#
 (
5 )
 
 
)

 


)

  
'

"  

 (



'

'
 (


'


 
'(
(

" 


" 
 
 



  

"
 (
 



 


<7
   

" 


 (
"
'



%
:7




 


 


<7
   
>




"
 

"  
%6


"  
%9
 


  
"





 (
"
 ' 
:7

;:





(


'


 
/  
 
)
 


(
 (


" 

" 
1  


  " 
 


 
 ,

 
 
B 
"" 

"  


"

>"





" 

7<669766

 [6]

>

   

)


  
"
 
 

" 

 





(



  
!

 

" 
'(
1
) '(
  
&
&

  



 /  
 
 
'

 





 JUDGE