WA No. 12 of 2015. Case: Md. Mijan Hossain Vs The State of Tripura and Ors.. Tripura High Court

Case NumberWA No. 12 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate and A. Banik, Advocate and For Respondents: T. Dutta Majumder, G.A.
JudgesT. Vaiphei, C.J. and S.C. Das, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 226
Judgement DateJanuary 31, 2017
CourtTripura High Court


S.C. Das, J., (At Agartala)

1. This intra-court appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2015 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 224 of 2014, whereunder a writ petition, filed by the appellant herein, as petitioner(hereinafter mentioned as petitioner) has been dismissed.

2. We have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. A. Banik for the appellant, learned G.A., Mr. T. Dutta Majumder for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Choudhury for respondent No. 10 and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury for respondent No. 11.

3. By filing the writ petition the petitioner prayed for the following relief:-

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Honourable Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Respondents should not transmit all records relating to the case of the Petitioners;


As to why a Writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the selection of Private Respondents 10 and 11 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in plant pathology in the college of Agriculture, Lembucherra, Tripura vide decision of the meeting of the council of Ministers held on 27th February, 2014 and their offer of appointment issued in the first week of June, 2014 in pursuance to the advertisement for recruitment issued by the Government of Tripura, Department of Agriculture vide No. F.19(18)-Agri/SARS/CAT/2011-12/255 dated 29th April, 2013;


As to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the State Respondents to cancel the selection and offer of appointment in respect of the Private Respondents 10 and 11 and to fill up one of the posts of Assistant Professor, Plant Pathology by the petitioner;

4. Director of Agriculture(respondent No. 2) under the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura vide Memo. No. F.19(18)-Agri/SARS/CAT/2011-12/255 dated 29th April, 2013 invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of 64 posts of Professor, Associate professor, Assistant Professor, etc. in the College of Agriculture, Lembucherra, Tripura, which included two posts of Assistant Professor in Plant Pathology.

5. The petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 applied for the post of Assistant Professor, in Plant Pathology branch, having all requisite qualifications.

The State Government constituted interview Board consisting of respondent Nos. 3 to 9 and that Board conducted the interview both subjective and objective. Objective assessment was of 60 marks and the subjective interview was of 40 marks. The interview Board recommended the names of respondent Nos. 10 and 11 for two posts of Assistant Professor in Plant Pathology and the Department issued offer to them.

The petitioner returned unsuccessful and he challenged the advertisement as well as the selection process on different grounds by filing a writ petition before this Court.

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal was filed.

6. In an intra-court appeal, we are not required to re-examine and re-appreciate the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties before the writ Court so meticulously as is required by a regular appellate authority. In an an-intra court appeal, the appellate Forum is to consider as to whether the writ Court has failed to exercise its power/jurisdiction as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution and as to whether any finding of the writ Court was suffered from perversity or that any statutory provision or settled position of law has been ignored by the writ Court. The decision of the writ Court is not required to be interfered by this appellate Forum simply on the ground that another equally possible view may be taken and thereby to substitute the view taken by the writ Court. If the decision of the writ Court is supported by some material and logic acceptable by law, the appellate Forum is not required to interfere with the decision of the writ Court.

7. The first argument advanced by learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik was that the petitioner was having with a brilliant academic career in comparison to respondent Nos. 10 and 11 but the interview Board failed to properly assess the academic performances of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 10 and 11. The objective assessment what was made did not correctly reflect the performances of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 10 and 11, and as a result the petitioner was deprived and respondent Nos. 10 and 11 were wrongly selected.

Countering the submission learned G.A., Mr. Dutta Majumder submitted that interview Board consists of experts in the subject and they made both objective and subjective assessments and the petitioner did not raise any objection before he appeared in the interview and when he became unsuccessful he filed the writ petition raising various unfounded allegations that the assessment was not correctly made, which was not tenable in law. Once the petitioner participated in the selection process he cannot challenge the assessment made by the interview Board and this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 cannot sit as an appellate authority of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT