SANJIT BAUL Vs. TRIPURA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY
LAWS(TRIP)-2019-2-31
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on February 20,2019

Sanjit Baul Appellant
VERSUS
Tripura Central University Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - (1.)Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the University-respondents, and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. None appears for the respondent No. 5. However, the respondent No.5, according to this court, is not a proper party.
(2.)The grievance of the petitioner falls within a short compass. The petitioner is a DRW (Daily Rated Worker) under the Tripura Central University for operating pumps. He has served the University-respondents for more than 11 (eleven) years and he has been expecting regularization of his service. But that did not happen. The respondents by the employment Notification dtd. 14/11/2014 Annexure-5 to the writ petition, invited application from eligible candidates for filling up the post of the Pump Operator on regular basis along with other posts which were lying vacant at the relevant point of time. In response to the said Notification dtd. 14/11/2014, the petitioner applied for his appointment as the pump-operator. The petitioner has all the qualifications as laid down under the eligibility criteria in the said Notification dtd. 14/11/2014. For appointment to the post of Pump Operator, the following qualifications and experience had been asked for:
"ITI certificate or equivalent qualification in the trade with 2 years relevant experience subject to qualifying trade test."

(3.)The petitioner was found eligible after scrutiny and accordingly he was interviewed but the respondent No.4 was appointed against the said solitary vacancy of the pump-operator. However, the petitioner had asked the University-respondents to disclose the record of selection. On disclosure it is found that the respondent No.4 was at the top of the panel, whereas the petitioner was below him i.e. in the second position. After disclosure made under Sec. 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner came to know from the respondent No.5 that the certificate of ITI of plumbing as produced by the respondent No.4 was not genuine, in as much as the State Public Information Officer ITI, Indranagar the respondent No.5 has categorically informed the attorney of the petitioner as follows:
"As per our Office records, Shri Abul Hushin Miah, S/o Shri Abdul Clalek Miah bearing Roll No.06/PLUM/ITI/AGT/2004 did not undergone any training in the Plumber at ITI Indranagar, Agartala in the month of July, 2004."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.