Nayan Kumar Dhar vs The State of Tripura and 5 others

TRHC010007542024
2026:THC:1447
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

W.P.(C) No.345 of 2024

Sri Nayan Kumar Dhar,
Son of Sri Dilip Kumar Dhar,
Resident of New Town, near Bazar India,
P.S. R K Pur, Tripura, Pin 799120 (Age-45 years)
……Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Tripura,
(To be represented by) the Secretary,
Department of Labour, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin 799010.

2. The Secretary, Department of Labour,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin 799010.

3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin 799010.

4. The Director of Employment Services & Manpower
Planning, Tripura,
Directorate of Employment Services & Manpower Planning,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin 799001.

5. The Chairman, Joint Recruitment Board, Tripura,
Shram Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin 799001.

6. The Member Secretary, Joint Recruitment Board,
Tripura,
Sharm Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin 799001.

7. The Controller, Joint Recruitment Board, Tripura,
Shram Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin 799001.
……Respondent(s)




For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Adv.


For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Promod Sahu, Adv.


Date of Hearing : 03.10.2026

Page 2 of 10


Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 14.10.2026

Whether fit for
Reporting : YES


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:
(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show
cause as to why Writ in the nature of
mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be
issued whereby directing the Respondents to
recommend the name of the Petitioner against
the post of Lower Division Clerk/Agri. Assistant
(TAFS Grade-III)/Agri. Assistant (Except TAFS
Grade-III), in c/w Advt. No.01/2020 and
Notification, dated 12.02.2021, for the posts of
Group-C, [Lower Division Clerk (LDC),
Agriculture Assistant (Except TAFS Grade-III),
Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Grade-III), Junior
Operator (Pump) & Junior-Tasking Operator
(Uncommon)].
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show
cause as to why Writ in the nature of
mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be
issued whereby directing the Respondents to
re-publish the Merit List, dated 13.09.2023,
after including the name of the Petitioner
therein.
(iii) Make the rules absolute.
iv) Pass any further order/orders as this
Hon’ble High Court considered fit and proper.
AND
For this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as is
duty bound, shall ever pray.
02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. D. Paul appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Additional G.A,
Mr. M. Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondent
and Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Sahu appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 to 7.

Page 3 of 10

03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that by an
advertisement dated 27.11.2020, the JRBT invited online
application for fillip up of 1500 posts of LDC (Group-C) and
thereafter, by another notification, the JRBT increased the said
nos. of posts from 1500 to 2410 of different categories. In the
said notification there was a clause in respect of age “(c) As
regards to the candidates who had participated in the cancelled
recruitment process by the Department of Agriculture, they will
be given one time age relaxation in the upper age limit subject
to providing documentary evidence of their participation in the
earlier recruitment processes for the same post(s) ”.
According to Learned Counsel, prior to that
Department of Agriculture had issued another advertisement on
25.09.2018 for filling up the post of Agri-Assistant (TAFS Grade-
III) and the petitioner participated in the said selection process
and in this regard token was issued (Annexure-3), but after that
as the said process was cancelled, so, with the clause of age
relaxation, he applied for the post of LDC against the notification
dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-2).
It was further submitted that JRBT in the said
selection process issued Provisional Admission Certificate to him
(Annexure-4) and he appeared in the selection test and after
that he was called for interview (Annexure-5) and secured

Page 4 of 10

121.75 marks both in the written examination as well as in the
interview. But according to the petitioner, inspite of securing
said marks his name was not recommended by JRBT for
appointment although the persons who had secured lesser
marks were recommended by JRBT for appointment to the
Government and in this regard, the notification dated
13.09.2023 (Annexure-6) was drawn by Learned Counsel for the
petitioner and thereafter, he submitted representation but that
was not considered. Hence, he filed the writ petition.
04. The respondents have contested the case by filing
counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit in para Nos.10 and 11
the following assertions were made:
“10. That, in reply to para 11 of the Writ
Petition, I say that the fact is that the
petitioner compared his marks with other UR
category candidates in the final merit list, Sri
Nabajit Bhattacharjee at Sl. No.447
recommended for the post of LDC having
secured 121.7 marks, Sri Kaushik Biswas at Sl.
No.448 recommended for the post of LDC
having secured 121.5 marks and Sri Rupak Dey
at Sl. No.450 recommended for the post of
Agri. Asstt. TAFS Gr.III Post having secured
121.5 marks. Although the petitioner secured
more marks than that of the aforesaid UR
candidates but here the candidature of the
petitioner was not considered due to over age
(DOB 24/12/1978) which was found 42 years
02 month 19 days as on the last date of
submission of application i.e, on 12/03/2021
as per Advertisement notification dated
12/02/2021.
11. That, in reply to para 12 of the Writ
Petition, I say that Regarding the document i.e,
the token received from the petitioner during
document verification as an evidence of his
carlier participation in the recruitment process
of the Agriculture Department vide
Advertisement No.-Tripura /Agri./142/2018
dated 25/09/2018, it appears that he had
applied for the post of Agri. Assistant (TAFS
Grade-III).

Page 5 of 10

It is pertinent to mention here that the model
token issued by the Director of Agriculture vide
Memo No.F.2(803)-Agri(Estt.)/2015-
16/14783-90 dated 06/01/2017 was against
the Advertisement No. Tripura/Agri/803/2017
dated 03/01/2017, which was subsequently
cancelled, was communicated to JRBT by the
Director of Agriculture to take it as a proof or
evidence of participation of the candidates in
the cancelled recruitment process. But no such
communication received as against the
Advertisement No. Tripura/Agri/142/2018
dated 25.09.2018 from the Agriculture
Department. The token submitted by the
petitioner as evidence was against the
Advertisement dated 25/09/2018 and as such
it was not taken under consideration.
Moreover, the said impugned Advt. dated
25.09.2018 was issued after the new
recruitment policy by the GA(P&T) Department
dated 20.08.2018 came into force, from which
it can be presumed that it was not covered
under cancelled recruitment process as was
mentioned in the GA(P&T) Department
memorandum dated 20.08.2018. Rather it was
clearly mentioned in the said Advertisement
dated 25.09.2018 that the Advt. issued by the
Department of Agriculture vide No.
Tripura/Agri./803/2017 dated 03.01.2017 was
cancelled in pursuance of the GA(P&T)
Department Memo No.F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18
dated 20.08.2018 and the said Advertisement
was also cancelled vide notice dated
05/09/2018.
Thus, it is obvious that the evidence produced
by the petitioner Sri. Nayan Kumar Dhar was
not sufficient to consider for age relaxation as
the document produced by the petitioner was
related to his earlier participation in the
recruitment process of the Agriculture
Department vide Advertisement No-
Tripura/Agri/142/2018 dated 25/09/2018
which was not communicated by the
Agriculture Department regarding its
cancellation, and also the petitioner did not
submit any document as evidential proof issued
by the Agriculture Department towards
cancellation of the Advt.
Tripura/Agri./142/2018 dated 25.09.2018.”
Learned G.A. for the State-respondents submitted
that the role of State is formal in nature, however, Learned
Counsel Mr. P. Sahu appearing on behalf of the JRBT submitted
that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. He further
drawn the attention of the Court the notification dated

Page 6 of 10

25.09.2018 issued by Department of Agriculture & Farmers
Welfare wherein it was mentioned that the earlier notification of
the Department dated 03.01.2017 was cancelled but the
notification dated 25.09.2018 was not cancelled by the
Department. But the petitioner suppressing the said fact has
filed this writ petition and furthermore, the petitioner could not
produce any document to substantiate that the said notification
was cancelled by the authority. It was also submitted by this
time there is no vacancy as submitted by Learned Counsel for
the petitioner and all the vacancies have been filled up. Learned
Counsel referring para No.11 of the counter-affidavit submitted
that in the counter-affidavit it has been specifically mentioned
by the JRBT that notification dated 03.01.2017 was cancelled by
the Government but no such notification dated 25.09.2018 was
cancelled by the Department, so, with the plea of cancelling the
notification, there is no scope to claim any benefit in this case.
It was further submitted that when the new
Government joined that time a new recruitment policy was
formulated on 20.08.2018 and in the said policy in clause-4
following assertion was made:
“4. As regards the candidates who had
participated in the cancelled recruitment
processes, they are to be given one time
relaxation in upper age limit to enable them to
participate once in the fresh recruitment
process subject to providing documentary
evidence of their participation in the earlier
recruitment processes for the same post(s).”

Page 7 of 10

But the notification of the Agriculture Department
was issue after the new recruitment policy on 25.09.2018 which
was not cancelled and in this regard no documentary evidence
could be produced. So, the petitioner is not entitled to get any
benefit in this writ petition with the plea that the said
notification on 25.09.2018 was cancelled by the concerned
Department and as such there is no merit in the writ petition
filed by the petitioner and hence, Learned Counsel for JRBT
urged for dismissal of the writ petition.
05. I have heard both the sides and perused the writ
petition and the documents annexed with the same as well as
the counter-affidavit and the documents annexed by the
respondents-JRBT. Here in this case, the petitioner applied for
the post of LDC, Agri. Assistant (TAFS Grade-III). In view of the
notification dated 27.11.2020 and subsequent notification dated
12.02.2021 (Annexure-2) and also he sought age relaxation in
view of Clause-c of the category of age relaxation in notification
dated 12.02.2021. It was the case of the petitioner that he
earlier applied against the said post in view of the notification
dated 25.09.2018 issued by Department of Agriculture and in
support of this contention, he relied upon the token issued by
the Department (Annexure-3). He further submitted that the
said process was cancelled and as such he sought age relaxation
and in the said advertisement it was mentioned that the entire
recruitment process will follow the guidelines of GA(P&T)

Page 8 of 10

Department notification dated 05.06.2018 and subsequent
memo dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure-R/2) but in the memo
dated 20.08.2018 in Clause-4 it was specifically mentioned that
the candidates who participated in the cancelled recruitment
process, they will be given one time age relaxation once in the
fresh recruitment process. But the petitioner claimed age
relaxation in pursuance of advertisement memo dated
25.09.2018 issued by the Department of Agriculture which was
issued after the issuance of new recruitment policy dated
28.08.2018 issued by the Government and furthermore, since
the said notification dated 25.09.2018 was issued after issuance
of the memo dated 20.08.2018, so, in view of the memo dated
20.08.2018 there was no scope on the part of the petitioner to
claim any benefit of age relaxation because the said notification
clearly spoken about the earlier cancelled recruitment processes
and furthermore, in the said notification dated 25.09.2018 it
was specifically stated that those who participated in the
cancelled memo dated 03.01.2017 which was cancelled would
be given upper age limit relaxation. The petitioner at the time of
hearing could not produce any document before this Court to
substantiate that the said memo dated 25.09.2018 issued by
the Department of Agriculture was cancelled by the Department.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner although drawn
the attention of the Court referring para No.11 of the counter-
affidavit wherein it was mentioned that JRBT did not receive any

Page 9 of 10

communication from the department that the advertisement
dated 25.09.2018 was cancelled, so, he is entitled to get the
benefit of age relaxation and furthermore, referring the
advertisement dated 12.02.2021 the petitioner also tried to
draw the attention of the Court that in the respective column of
age relaxation, it was not specifically mentioned which
recruitment process was cancelled, so, he is entitled to get the
benefit. But this submission of Learned Counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted as a valid and lawful submission
in view of the fact that as no specific date was mentioned, so,
he is entitled to get benefit in this writ petition on the ground of
upper age limit and furthermore, it was also the duty of the
petitioner to produce documentary evidence on record that the
said notification dated 25.09.2018 issued by the Department of
Agriculture was cancelled by the Department and in this regard,
he could apply for necessary information from the Department
under RTI Act but no such effort was taken by him.
Thus, it appears that the petitioner could not place
any materials before this Court at the time of hearing to
substantiate his case for granting relief in his favour and as such
in my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to get any
relief in this writ petition. Rather it appears to this Court that
the JRBT rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner.

Page 10 of 10

06. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
bears no merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed and
rejected.
With this observation, this present petition stands
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE


Digitally signed by PURNITA
DEB
Date: 2026.10.15 18:16:42
+05'30'
PURNITA DEB

Purnita