Tripura High Court
Sri Sajal Saha vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 8 January, 2021
Page - 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.536/2020
Sri Sajal Saha
............ Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and Ors.
............ Respondents(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S S Dey, Adv. Gen.,
Mr. D Sharma, Adl. Govt. Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
_O_R_D_E_ R_
08/01/2021
Petitioner has challenged an order dated 31st March, 2020 under
which his services as an Under Graduate Teacher in Government School
came to be terminated.
Brief facts are as under :
Case of the petitioner is that his brother and brother's wife died
in a tragic vehicular accident which took place on 25 th April, 2013 leaving
behind two minor children. The petitioner was virtually the sole support
for the destitute minors. Petitioner's brother was a Government servant
while he met with the accident. The petitioner was appointed as a legal
guardian of the minor children of his brother by a competent Court under
Page - 2 of 7
an order dated 19th December, 2020. The petitioner being unemployed and
the family having no other source of income, he approached the
Government for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though such
application is not on record there is correspondence on record suggesting
that at one stage the request of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment was under active consideration of the authorities.
Be that as it may, the petitioner was appointed as an Under
Graduate Teacher under an order 26th February, 2014. The petitioner's
services came to be terminated by virtue of decision of this Court in case
of Tanmoy Nath and others vs. State of Tripura and others reported in
(2014) 2 TLR 731 which was eventually held by the Supreme Court, and
as per which decision, all Teachers recruited and appointed through the
selection process which took place in the year 2010-2012 were liable to be
terminated if not selected on regular basis in subsequent selection
processes.
In short, the case of the petitioner forcefully put before me by
the counsel is that the petitioner did not form part of the ten thousand plus
teachers whose selection was found to be tainted by this Court in the
judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra). The petitioner was appointed
Page - 3 of 7
on compassionate grounds. Such appointment could not have been
terminated on the basis of the judgment of this Court.
On the other hand, the case of the department is that petitioner
was never offered appointment on compassionate grounds. Firstly, he was
overage at the time of death of his brother. Secondly, he could not be
stated to be a dependent member of the family of the deceased
Government servant. The petitioner had applied for appointment as a
Teacher pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Government in the
year 2010. He was interviewed, selected and offered appointment. This
selection process was set aside by the High Court in case of Tanmoy
Nath(supra). The petitioner's services were liable to be terminated along
with other similarly situated Teachers.
In order to resolve this issue, reference to documents in record
would be necessary. As noted, the application made by the petitioner for
compassionate appointment is not on record. However, what we find is
that on 5th February 2014, Director of School Education wrote to the head
of office of Ramnagar High School which letter contains a reference to
the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate
grounds due to the death of his brother. Under this letter, the Director
asked the head of the office to provide necessary documents and
Page - 4 of 7
declarations from the petitioner. On 10th February 2014, the Director
further wrote to the head of office of Ramnagar High School asking for
self declaration of the petitioner and no objection certificate from the
dependent family members. On 26th February 2014, the petitioner filed an
affidavit before the authorities making necessary declaration undertaking
to support the family of the deceased. Incidentally, on 26 th February, 2014
itself the petitioner came to be appointed as a Teacher. This order,
however, does not state that the appointment was on compassionate
grounds.
From the above noted sequence of events and documents it
would be tempting to conjecture that the appointment of the petitioner was
on compassionate grounds. In absence of any contrary material, it may
perhaps be a correct conclusion.
However, there is strong counter assertion by the Government
that such appointment was never granted on compassionate basis and it
was by way of a culmination of the selection process undertaken by the
Government for appointment of large number of Teachers. In the
affidavit-in-reply dated 5th January 2021, it has been stated that the
petitioner was overage on the date of death of his brother and was also not
considered a dependent member of the family of the deceased. On the
Page - 5 of 7
contrary, it is stated that the petitioner had applied for the post of Under
Graduate Teacher in the year 2010. The Government decided to set up 6
interview boards to assess the suitability of large number of candidates
who had applied. This was on the basis of employment policy formulated
by the Government. The petitioner was asked to appear before the
interview board on 8th November, 2010. Interview call letter was,
therefore, issued. The petitioner appeared before the interview board and
secured merit position No.57 under UR(Need) Category and was graded
Bve-. He was, therefore, placed in the first position of waiting list of
UR(Need) Category as per the recommendation of the interview board
and accordingly, an offer of appointment was made to the petitioner on
26th February, 2014 which he accepted and joined as Under Graduate
Teacher. Along with the said affidavit the respondents have produced a
copy of the call letter dated 6th October, 2010 calling the petitioner to
appear before the interview board on 8th November 2010, extract of the
recommendations of the interview panel who had interviewed the
petitioner and other relevant documents.
It is undisputed that by virtue of the decision of this Court in
case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) as upheld by the Supreme Court, large
number of Teachers who were recruited under the same selection process
came to be terminated whenever they could not get themselves selected in
Page - 6 of 7
the subsequent selection processes. If the petitioner, therefore, had been
appointed pursuant to the same selection process, his termination order
would call for no interference. On the other hand, as canvassed by the
counsel for the petitioner, if his appointment was out of turn appointment
under the Die-in-Harness Scheme and not by way of open merit selection,
the shadow of the decision of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath would
not fall on the petitioner's employment. It is in this context that I have
referred to the materials relied upon by the two sides. Though the
inquiries made by the Director of Education with the school authorities
about the preparedness and eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds happened in close proximity i.e. just before he
was actually offered appointment, the evidence on record strongly
suggests that the petitioner was one of the selectees of Tanmoy Nath's
group of Teachers. As noted, long before his brother and brother's wife
met with the accident the petitioner had applied for appointment in
response to the advertisement issued by the Government. He was
interviewed in November, 2010 and as pointed out by the respondents, on
the basis of his records he was placed in Wait List No.1 in UR(Need)
Category. It was pursuant to this selection process that the petitioner was
offered appointment, which he accepted and which he was asked to vacate
on account of the subsequent events noted.
Page - 7 of 7
In the result, petition fails and is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI, CJ)
Sukehendu
