[ad_1]
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 14-12-2022
in W.A. Nos.31/2021 [Saikat Saha vs. The State of Tripura and
Others], 83/2021 [Sujit Nath vs. The State of Tripura and Others],
81/2021 [Tutan Saha vs. The State of Tripura and Others] & 87/2021
[Samaresh Debnath vs. The State of Tripura and Others] passed by
the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, we
were of the considered view that perhaps interest of justice as
also the parties would be best met if the present appellants were
to be accommodated, without any intervention on our part,
disturbing the arrangement set out by the High Court in terms of
the impugned order. Appellants herein were required to be
accommodated with the creation of supernumerary posts of Rural
Programme Manager (For short, “the RPM”). In fact, on 11 th February
2025, we had recorded the statements of the appellants to the
effect that should the State favourably consider doing so, the
appellants would not claim any seniority and/or back wages.
[ad_2]
Source link