The High Court of Tripura while dismissing a petition of a contractual teacher seeking resumption of his services held that a contractual employee cannot claim continuation of his service however long he has served the organization petitioner’s engagement or reinstatement in service can only be decided by the respondents and the court should not exercise its jurisdiction for directing the respondents for his reinstatement.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, engaged as a Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan(SSA) on a contractual basis in the year 2007 for a period of one year was implicated in a criminal case which was lodged by a student of the school with the allegation of sexual harassment after which the contract service of the petitioner was put in suspension till disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner was acquitted due to no evidence after which he filed a representation for resuming his duties which was rejected by the respondents for the reason that his period of absence was prolonged and the administration was unaware of his pedagogical competency level and teaching ability.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that t there is no evidence that the respondents had taken any effort or endeavour to test the teaching ability of the petitioner and the petitioner has not given any reasonable opportunity to prove his ability before the concerned authority and thus rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to resume his duty is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. Further, it was submitted that the respondents are under legal obligation to reinstate the petitioner and allow him to resume his duty as a contractual teacher under the SSA project.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner has no right to claim reinstatement in the service since he was on a contractual basis and he was not holding any civil post and since the petitioner was not holding any civil post, he has no locus at all to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a direction from this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus for reinstatement of the petitioner.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the teaching ability test of the petitioner had not been conducted by the respondents at any point in time and further the petitioner was in a contractual period, and on each and every occasion his period of service was extended for one year and it continued up to 2019 till his suspension. It was stated that a contractual employee cannot claim continuation of his service however long he has served the organization.
The court referred to the judgment in the case of Santajoy Tripura and stated that the single judge rightly held that being the nature of engagement of the petitioner was contractual, it did not tantamount to holding a civil post and in this circumstance, he has no right to the post and further petitioner’s engagement or reinstatement in service can only be decided by the respondents and this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction for directing the respondents for his reinstatement.
The court further directed the concerned authority to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner asking him to reply as to why his contractual service would not be further extended or continued to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Sri Badal Majumder vs The State of Tripura and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) No.455 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Roy Barman and Mr. D. Paul
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. A. Chakraborty
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
