CDJ Law Journals

[1] This is an application seeking clarification of the judgment and order dated 30.04.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No.695 of 2024.

[2] The said judgment was analogously decided with few other cases bearing W.P.(C) No.694 of 2024, W.P.(C) No.784 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.785 of 2024. All the cases, except W.P.(C) No.695 of 2024 relates to selection of Group-D employees, whereas W.P.(C) No.695 of 2024 relates to selection of Group-C employees like LDC, Agriculture Assistant [except TAFS Grade-III], Agricultural Assistant [TAFS Grade-III], Junior Operator [Pump] and Junior Multi Tasking Operator [uncommon] and all the writ petitions were related to reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for the persons with benchmark disability under the said Act. This Court finally decided the case in the following terms:

                  [34] The respondents were required to scrupulously follow the procedure as laid down in Indra Sawhney (supra) and Prabir Datta (supra) and also clause 9 of the guidelines issued by the State Government dated 09.01.2019, but they failed. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed with the following directions-

                  [A] So far, the three writ petitions bearing Nos. WP(C) 694 of 2024, WP(C) 784 of 2024 and WP(C) 785 of 2024 are concerned, the respondents shall consider the selection of the candidates having benchmark disabilities according to their own merit i.e. on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the selection process and thereafter they will be accommodated in the vertical reservation meant for UR/SC/ST candidates based on the categories to which they belong and a fresh selection list shall be published accordingly. In this process, if any person/persons is/are found not eligible to be selected who is/are earlier shown selected in the related selection list as impugned herein and is/are already appointed, liberty will be there to the State respondents to take necessary steps in this regard, for cancellation of his/their appointment after observing due procedure;

                  [B] Now, so far as WP(C) No.695 of 2024 is concerned, regarding the matter of candidates with benchmark disability in respect of said advertisement dated 12.02.2021, the State respondents will first collect information about the number of posts reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities in each cadre of each establishment in pursuance of what are discussed in earlier paragraphs and then shall follow the directions contained in paragraph No.34(A) above and in terms of Section 34 of RPwD Act, 2016. A post-wise fresh list of selected candidates separately for each of the posts i.e. LDC, Agriculture Assistant (Except TAFS, Grade III), Agriculture Assistant (TAFS, Grade III), Junior Operator (Pump) and Junior Multi Tasking Operator (un-common) based on the merit of the candidates, shall be published accordingly. Needless to say, in this process also, if any person/persons is/are found not eligible to be selected who is/are earlier shown selected in the related selection list as impugned herein and is/are already appointed, liberty will be there to the State respondents to take necessary steps in this regard, for cancellation of his/their appointment after observing due procedure.

                  [C] The entire exercise of the total process in relation to both the advertisements as mentioned in sub-paragraph Nos. [A] and

                  [B] above shall be completed within 04 (four) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

[3] Earlier thereto, concerning the above said selection process of the Group-C post, another judgment was passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.264 of 2024 in the case of Kinkar Bhowmik vs. State of Tripura & Others on 12.08.2025 in the following terms:

                  26. In view of above discussions, it is held that the proper procedure was not followed by the JRBT in terms of the instructions as borne in the advertisements as well as prospectus cum instruction manual, and also in terms of the clarification and guidelines issued by the State regarding the Recruitment Policy as noted earlier. Even the provisions of the Tripura Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 do not appear to have been followed properly while determining the number of posts meant for reserved category candidates. Therefore, the selection process is required to be interfered with. However, the position of the candidates who have already been selected, will remain unaffected and undisturbed, as admittedly, they scored higher marks in the written examination occupying higher position in the merit list than the candidates who were not called for interview and there is also no challenge or allegation that such recruitment process was vitiated by biasness or unfairness.

                  [27] Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 4 to 7 are directed to take up again the process of filling up of rest vacant posts of LDC, Junior Operator (Pump), Junior Multitasking Operator (Uncommon), Agricultural Assistant (TAFS Grade III) where vacancies still remain, and in that process, firstly, the candidates who have already scored the cut off marks i.e. qualifying marks or above in the written examination, shall be called for document verification and during that stage the respondent Nos.4 to 7 will ascertain the posts against which they actually applied for. Thereafter, separate lists will be prepared post-wise at the ratio of 1:3 on the basis of their merit position in the written examination and the persons who comes under the zone of consideration for calling for interview, will only be called for such interview and final list of selected candidates will be prepared and published thereafter. Simultaneously, the respondent No.4 to 7 shall also re-visit the vacancy position meant for reserved category of candidates in respect of above said posts under advertisements, in the light of the discussions made in paragraph nos. 21 to 24 above. It is also clarified that the candidates who despite calling for interview in the earlier phase of the selection process, remained unsuccessful, will also be called for interview again, if their names find place in the list prepared as per said ratio of 1:3.

[4] Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the JRBT submits that they are facing inconveniences in implementing the judgment, particularly in respect of the directions given in case No. W.P(C) No.695 of 2024 and therefore, clarification has been sought for on the following grounds as indicated below by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel.

[5] Initially, in the petition for clarification certain clarifications were sought for but during hearing, those were not pressed for consideration, rather a separate additional affidavit has been submitted on behalf of the JRBT, seeking clarification of certain other points as discussed hereinafter.

[6] Learned counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh, submits, firstly, that while undertaking the exercise of complying with the judgment, it is seen that tentatively 11 persons with benchmark disabilities (PwDs) candidates, who had earlier been recommended and subsequently appointed on the basis of the earlier selection list, would not find place in the revised merit list. Consequently, their services may be terminated. Out of these 11 candidates, 8 are presently posted as LDCs and 3 are posted as Agriculture-Assistant (TAFS Gr.III).

[7] The second point, as raised by learned counsel, is that after the adjustment of PwD candidates, it appears that further tentatively 34 candidates, who are Non-PwD/Non-ESM(Ex-Servicemen) candidates are found eligible for recommendation on the basis of their merit. These candidates were not recommended earlier due to the wrong application of the horizontal reservation policy. Out of these 34 candidates, 3 belong to the UR category, 2 are SC and 29 are ST category candidates, and all of them are proposed to be recommended for the post of LDC as per their post preference. Now, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel further submits that 34 vacancies required to be filled up following the judgment passed in Kinkar Bhowmik’s case from among those candidates who had already faced the interview under Non-PwD category and obtained certain marks in the interview, but they were not provided with the job. Therefore, their marks obtained in the oral interview are required to be protected.

[8] Thirdly, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, submits that while carrying out the exercise of complying with the judgments of Kinkar Bhowmik’s case as well as the instant writ petition, it has been found that 17 persons, who were already selected in different posts, are required to be converted to some other posts in the following manner:

Changes of posts	No. of candidates
LDC to Agriculture Assistant (TAFS GR.III)	09
LDC to Agriculture Assistant (except TAFS Gr.III)	01
Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Gr.III) to LDC	06
Agriculture Assistant (except TAFS Gr.III) to Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Gr.III)	01
TOTAL	17

According to learned counsel, Mr. Lodh, permission may be accorded by the Court to change them from their present post of appointment to some other post as proposed.

[9] Mr. Saktimoy Chakroborty, learned Advocate General submits that though the State Government is the employer of all the candidates, however, the recruitment is being conducted by the petitioner-JRBT. Therefore, after the JRBT makes recommendations in compliance with the judgments of Kinkar Bhowmik’s case and Joyjit Chowdhury’s case (the present writ petitions), the State Government will act accordingly.

[10] Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, however submits that there is no requirement of clarification of the said judgment as there is no scope of any sort of conflict between the decisions of all the cases.

[11] The Court has considered the submissions of all the sides.

[12] So far the first submissions of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel that while undertaking the exercise of complying with the judgment, it is seen that tentatively 11 persons with benchmark disabilities (PwDs) candidates, who had earlier been recommended and subsequently appointed on the basis of the earlier select list may be required to be terminated, same does not require any further clarification as already in the judgment it is clarified that if any person(s) is found not eligible to be selected who was earlier shown in the select list and is already appointed, the state-respondents will be at liberty to take necessary steps for cancellation for their appointment after observing due procedure.

[13] The 2nd point as raised by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel is that after adjustment PwD candidates, further tentatively 34 candidates who are non-PwD/non-ESM are now found eligible for recommendation on the basis of their merit by taking note of their marks obtained in the interview in the earlier phase and therefore, said marks obtained in the earlier interview are required to be protected. But the plea is also not tenable as in Kinkar Bhowmik’s case at paragraph No.27, it is clearly stated that the candidates who despite calling for interview in the earlier phase of the selection process, remained unsuccessful, will also be called for interview again, if their names find place in the list prepared as per said ratio of 1:3. Therefore, such claim of protection of the marks obtained by any of the candidates in earlier oral interview is not sustainable. Moreover, any clarification in respect of judgment passed in Kinkar Bhowmik’s case is not sought for in the instant application and as submitted at the Bar, the State Govt. already preferred an appeal against the said judgment and subsequently withdrew the same. Therefore, said judgment has already reached the finality. Said Kinkar Bhowmik is not made party in the instant application.

[14] So far the 3rd point for clarification is concerned, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that while complying the above said judgments of this Court, it is now found that 17 persons who were already selected and appointed in different posts are required to be converted to some other posts now as indicated earlier and therefore, permission is sought for from the Court to change their present post of appointment to some other posts. But, earlier any such plea was not at all taken by the JRBT at the time of hearing of the above said writ petitions. Moreso, who are the above 17 persons are not clear before this Court and they are also not made party in the proceeding. Thus, no order in this regard can be passed in their absence. Moreso, the same was not at all an issue while W.P.(C) No.695 of 2024 was decided. Now, under the guise of clarification, same cannot be done. It is settled position of law that under the pretext of clarifying the judgment or order, the Court cannot review same. If there is any grievance of any of the litigating party against the judgment, they may approach the proper forum in due course.

[15] Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and Others, (2004) 12 SCC 713 at paragraph No.13 clearly observes that it is now well settled that an application for clarification and modification touching the merit of the matter would not be maintainable. The same principle has been again echoed in a subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case K.S. Palanisamy (Dead) through LRS vs. Hindu Community in General and Citizens of Gobichettipalayam represented by Senniappa Chettiar & Ors., Miscellaneous Application No.548-549/2018 in C.A. No.5924 of 2005, decided on 12.09.2023.

[16] Therefore, considering all these aspects, this Court does not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide