WA/232/2020 of The State of Tripura Vs Bapi Dey on 22 December 2020

Conclusion

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

WA No.232 of 2020

The State of Tripura & others

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

Shri Bapi Dey

........Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

22/12/2020

This appeal is filed by the State Government who feels aggrieved to a limited extent out of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 14.08.2020 in WP(C) No.288 of 2020 which was filed by the respondent herein.

In the writ petition the petitioner who was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor had challenged a fresh selection process initiated by the Government for the said post by curtailing the petitioner’s tenure. The petition came to be dismissed recognizing the right of the Government to curtail the tenure of a public prosecutor. However, while disposing of the petition the learned Single Judge made certain observations for the ensuing and future selection processes for the post in question. The observations which the Government has questioned before us read as under :

“Further, when the selection committee would conduct the interview would follow the other mode of selection, the selection committee shall follow a rational method to select the best of the candidates for the above posts. In this regard, the Legal Remambrancer may lay down the guidelines by allocating marks on qualification, experience, skill, aptitude etc. The members of the selection committee shall give their individual marks in separate sheets which shall be, on completion of the interview or other mode of selection, be signed by the members of the selection committee. This can be done by prescribing a format with object of ensuring transparency. These sheets shall form the part of records and be sent to the Sessions Judges of the Districts during the consultation for obtaining his concurrence. The opinion of the Sessions Judge, if any, shall be given primacy before finalizing the selection and recommending to the Legal Remambrancer. During the entire exercise, the observation of Johri Mal (supra) shall be kept in mind in order to augment the standard of the prosecution by appointing meritorious and competent persons. In respect of appointment on the basis of the merit panel, the judgment of this court in Bapi Dey and another vs. State of Tripura and others (supra) (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) has to be the foundation in understanding the provisions of Section 24 of the CrPC.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our view these observations, though undoubtedly made for the purpose of bringing about greater transparency in the selection of Public Prosecutors, are more in the nature of general observations which could only be part of a public interest litigation and could be made after full discussion on all aspects of the matter, after going into pros and cons of various parameters and lastly in a litigation when such an issue directly arises. Without suggesting in the slightest our disagreement for any of the suggestions the learned Single Judge in the above observations, to find that it would be the interest of all concerned if laying down any such parameters is taken up in appropriate proceedings in future if the need so arises. These observations are therefore deleted. Goes without saying and it is expected that the selection process that the State authorities may follow in the ensuing selection process and all future selection processes would be transparent, non-discriminatory, would confirm to the rules and above all in tune with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

With these observations, appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Dipesh