Shri Arijit De & Others vs The State Of Tripura & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1186 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 3




                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA

                                W.A. No.46/2021

Shri Arijit De & others                ....                         Appellant(s)
                                       Vs.
The State of Tripura & others          ....                        Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)                 : Mr. S.K. Deb, Sr. Advocate,
                                   Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
                                   Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                        Order
30/11/2021
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)

The present writ appeal has been filed seeking to question the

order rendered in WP(C) No.696 of 2020 which came to be dismissed by

order dated 18.12.2020 inter alia with the following finding:

That, the case of the petitioners was covered by the judgment of

this Court in the case of Tanmay Nath and others versus State of Tripura

and others reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731 and subsequent affirmation of the

said judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court their services have been

terminated since they could not get themselves selected in the meantime. It is

further noted in the said order that all such teachers who did not qualify were

terminated w.e.f. 31.03.2020.

It appears that the argument before the learned Single Judge by

the petitioners firstly was that the plea raised by the petitioners for their

reinstatement was founded on an averment that respondents No.4 to 44 who

were also situated similarly as the petitioners and other teachers have been

retained in service. The learned Single Judge came to hold that "the

petitioners cannot contend that the respondents No.4 to 44 have been given

illegal but favourable treatment which the petitioners also must be accorded."

Ultimately, while disposing of the matter the Court observed as

follows:

"I am sure the State authorities will look into these aspects and

take such steps as found necessary. (vis-à-vis respondents No.4 to 44)"

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

essentially reiterated the contentions advanced before the learned Single

Judge and stated that the learned Single Judge has observed that the issues

raised by the petitioners could have been raised in a public interest petition.

With greatest of respect without entering into this issue since an observation

of a Court also amounts to a direction it is the duty of the State authorities to

comply with observations as well. However, after hearing the learned counsel

for the appellants, we find no justifiable basis for interfering with this order,

in particular, since from merits of the case the judgment in Tanmay Nath

(supra) as well as the affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are matters

of record and fact. As a consequence of compliance with the said directions

termination orders have been issued against the appellants (writ petitioners).

Whether respondents No.4 to 44 have been favourably treated or not and

whether they are eligible to continue as teachers or not is a matter which will

be looked into by the State in view of the observations made by the learned

Single Judge in the impugned order. We find no justifiable ground to

entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, while dismissing the present appeal

we grant liberty to the appellants, if so advised, to seek for appropriate relief.

The appeal stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Pulak