Tripura High Court

Santajoy Tripura vs State Of Tripura And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2021

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                      W.P.(C) No.579 of 2020

Santajoy Tripura
                                                    ----Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

State of Tripura And 6 Ors.
                                                  ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)      :      Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      :      Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

                               Order
09/02/2021

Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A.

appearing for the respondents.

02. The facts are mostly admitted. The petitioner was

appointed as the Contract Teacher (Primary) under Sarva

Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) initially vide the memorandum dated

28.06.2006 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] for one year on

fixed monthly honorarium. It appears from the records that said

engagement was renewed time to time and the petitioner had

continued till 30.08.2013 when one Pradip Das, a Sub-Inspector

of Police, Ambassa police station informed the Inspector of

Schools, Dhalai that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2013

in connection with Ambassa PS Case No.36 of 2013 dated

18.07.2013 under Sections 326/307/394 and 34 of the IPC. The

petitioner has also acceded to the said information by filing a

representation on 06.09.2013 and he sought coordination of his

unintentional absence from the duties. The incidence of arrest

was reported to the Principal Officer (Education), Tripura Tribal

Areas Autonomous District Council, Khumulwng by the

forwarding letter dated 10.09.2013.

03. In consequence thereof, the petitioner had been

treated terminated from the service with effect from

22.07.2013 by the memorandum dated 30.10.2013 [Annexure-

6 to the writ petition]. The petitioner filed a representation on

03.04.2014 informing the authority that the police report has

been filed on culmination of the investigation against him. Till

the trial is over, he may be allowed to resume his duties. But

the respondents did not take any positive action.

04. There is no dispute that by the judgment dated

03.09.2013 as passed in Case No.ST(T-1) 07 of 2015

emanating from Ambassa PS Case No.36 of 2013 as stated, the

petitioner was acquitted from the charge as framed against him

at the threshold of the trial under Sections 394/326/307 of the

IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act 'on benefit of doubt.'

05. Having thus acquitted from the charge, the petitioner

filed a representation to the Inspector of Schools on 12.07.2019

to reinstate him in his service. But for long, no response was

made available to the petitioner. However, it appears from the

memorandum dated 24.04.2020 [Annexure-R/10 to the reply

filed by the respondents] which Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has

claimed to have never served on the petitioner, that the State

Project Director & Director, EE has observed that the

petitioner's disengaged period has exceeded a prolonged

duration of more than 6(six) years and the administration being

unaware of his pedagogical competency level in teaching ability,

his prayer could not be considered. Hence, they regretted at

this moment. That apart, there was no process going on in the

Department for fresh engagement of contractual teachers. Such

engagements, if any, will now be subject to norms of NCTE

guidelines and RTE Act. His engagement was simply an annual

contractual one which has lapsed and there is no possibility of

fresh engagement after such a long duration/gap.

06. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has fairly submitted that

there is no substantive right of the petitioner to continue in the

post but principles of fairness demand that when a person has

been terminated on the basis of his implication in a criminal

case and when that indictment had fallen through after the trial

the said person should be considered for restituting his status

that he had lost for such indictment.

07. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner has further submitted that the respondents therefore

be directed to consider his reinstatement or restitution in the

service.

08. But Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has quite

robustly submitted that that cannot be done inasmuch as the

strict prescription that has been provided by NCTE guidelines.

For this purpose the respondents have prepared a comparative

table of qualification in respect of the petitioner and the

qualifications prescribed by NCTE which is as follows:

Educational Qualification of Sri Educational Qualification criteria as Santajoy Tripura, ex-Contract per guidelines of National Council Teacher, Samagra Shiksha for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide Notification dated 28th June, 2018 "F.No.NCTE-Regl 012/16/2018 - In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of notification number S.O. 750 (E), dated the 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Madhyamik Passed (2003) Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby makes the following further amendments to the notification number F.N.61-

03/20/2010/NCTE/(N & S), dated the 23rd August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated 25th August, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the said notification namely:

(1)In the said notification, in para 1 in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets "Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known),

the following shall be inserted, namely:

OR "Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)"

(2)In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para (a), the following sub-para shall be substituted namely:

"(a) who has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognized institution shall be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as Primary Teacher."

09. That apart, there is no process going on in the

department for engaging any Contractual Teacher. Even if, such

process commenced, the engagement of the Contractual

Teachers will be rigidly guided by the NCTE guidelines and RTE

Act, 2009. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has particularly

submitted that those provisions as referred above do not make

any distinction between the Contractual Teacher and Regular

Teacher so far their qualification and experience are concerned.

Thus, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has submitted that the

petitioner cannot be appointed neither his status can be

restored as the respondents cannot be held responsible for the

long absence from the service nor for discontinuation.