Sri Bijoy Krishna Saha And Ors vs The State Of Tripura And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 960 Tri

                                  Page - 1 of 8



                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA

                                WA No.222/2021
Sri Bijoy Krishna Saha and Ors.
                                                       ............ Appellant(s).
             - Vs. -
The State of Tripura and Ors.
                                                     ............ Respondent(s).

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate, Ms. Swarupa Chisim, Advocate, Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. Krishnendu Debnath, Advocate, For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattachariya, Govt. Advocate, Mr. S Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S TALAPATRA

_O_R_D_E_ R_

23/9/2021 (Akil Kureshi, CJ).

This appeal relates one of the most litigated issues in this High

Court arising out of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of

Tanmoy Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors., (2014) 2 TLR 731. This

litigation has a long history. However, it is not necessary to record all

events leading up to the present appeal.

[2] In brief, it may be noted that the State of Tripura had carried out

large scale recruitments of teachers in the Government schools between the Page - 2 of 8

years 2010-2013. These appointments came to be challenged by some of

the unsuccessful candidates before the Single Judge. The Single Judge did

not quash the selection but gave certain directions. Thereupon the State

challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge before the Division

Bench. In the meantime, some more petitions were also filed. These

proceedings were clubbed together for common consideration by the

Division Bench and disposed of by the judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath

(supra). The selections of the teachers were declared illegal and

consequently set aside. This would result into thousands of teachers being

terminated. The State preferred appeal before the Supreme Court. At one

stage, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment of the High Court, however

eventually by the judgment, dated 29th March 2017, dismissed the appeal

but granted one life line to the teachers of availing opportunity of selection

with age relaxation. The State was granted limited time for recruiting new

teachers. These time limits were extended from time to time and finally,

when there was no further extension, thousands of teachers stood

terminated. This created considerable resentment and the State was forced

to evolve methodology to absorb these teachers who had worked for close

to ten years before their termination. One of the offshoots of this litigation

reached the Supreme Court and in which the State filed two affidavits

which are significant for our purpose. In one such affidavit filed before the Page - 3 of 8

Supreme Court, on an around 18th April 2020, the State Government

disclosed its intention to permit these terminated teachers to participate in

selection process of vacant Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts by granting them age

relaxation whenever needed. In this affidavit, the State had made following

prayers :

" Permit the State Government to consider and appoint these discharged ad-hoc teachers, to vacant sanctioned Group-C/Group-D posts in the services of the State of Tripura on fulfilment of the eligibility conditions and with age relaxation wherever it is required;

A) permit age relaxation, in respect of such appointments as prayed hereinabove, of the ad-hoc teachers against sanctioned vacant non-technical Group - C and Group - D posts in different State Government Departments;

B) pass such other order or direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ..........."

[3] One more affidavit was filed by the State Government before the

Supreme Court, on 22nd July 2020, in which it was stated as under :

"17. The State Government, on 16.07.2020 has reached the decision to also submit the following for the permission of approval by this Hon‟ble High Court :-

i. Permit the State Government to allow relaxation in other conditions in Recruitment Rules as per need and justification.

ii. Permit the State Government to appoint the discharged ad- hoc teachers against vacant Government posts as per eligibility directly without open advertisement."

Page - 4 of 8

[4] The Supreme Court disposed of these proceedings by a detailed

judgment, dated 5th August 2020. Before the Supreme Court, the advocates

representing the terminated teachers had raised several grievances even

with respect to the intention of the State to accommodate these teachers in

Group-„C‟ and „D‟ posts. It was pointed out that even if appointed to such

posts, there shall be degradation of their service and they will also lose the

benefits of their past service for the purpose of pay fixation and seniority.

The Supreme Court did not accept any of these grievances of the

terminated teachers. Relevant portion of these observations while disposing

of all the proceedings including the appeal reads as under :

"16. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the State submitted that the selection and appointments were set aside by the High Court vide its decision in Tanmoy Nath1 as being arbitrary and illegal; and that it was found by the High Court that the selection was based purely on oral interview and suffered from nepotism and favouritism. He submitted that if the appointments themselves were illegal and the selection was set aside being arbitrary and invalid, the past service of such teachers could not be recognised in any manner and that the State Government had afforded adequate opportunity to the concerned candidates by giving age relaxation and apart therefrom no other benefit could be extended to such candidates. Responding to the annexures appended to the application filed in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.1324 of 2020, it was submitted that the figure of 20,165, being alleged vacant posts of teachers in the State, was not correct. Such figure was arrived at after taking into account the attempt on part of the State to create about 12,000 posts in Group-C Page - 5 of 8

in nonteaching category in the year 2017, which was subject matter of the action in the Contempt Petition before this Court in its Order dated 04.10.2017 and subsequent Orders.

17. The questions concerning legality and validity of the entire selection process and the appointments of about 10,323 teachers were gone into in detail in Tanmoy Nath1 . The findings rendered by the High Court and its conclusions were accepted by this Court while dismissing the appeals arising therefrom. Though the services of the concerned teachers were initially protected only upto 31.12.2017, accepting the plea made on behalf of the State, the concerned date was extended from time to time. It is a matter of record that the services of such candidates now stand terminated. In terms of the directions issued in Tanmoy Nath1 and appeal arising therefrom, the State is obliged to conduct selection process in which the concerned candidates will be entitled to participate with age relaxation. The age relaxation has now been afforded by the State in all selections till 31.03.2023, which benefit is quite adequate and proper.

18. In our view, considering the fact that the very selection and appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, no other advantage can be conferred upon the concerned candidates. It must be noted that the attempt on part of the State in offering certain alternate employment is not to degrade the teachers but some solace is being offered even in cases where the candidates do not succeed in the selections to the posts of teachers. The candidates, if they are otherwise competent and eligible, will certainly have every opportunity till 31.03.2023 to get selected for the posts of teachers in the State and by way of additional benefit those who are unsuccessful in such attempts may retain the alternate employment. In our view, it does not amount to any degradation.

19. Though the notice was confined to the question of age relaxation as was made clear in the Order dated 07.02.2020, we have considered submissions which were not strictly confined to said Page - 6 of 8

question. We, however, do not find any substance in the contentions, which are therefore rejected.

20. Consequently, these appeals and M.A. (D) No. 11372 of 2020 are dismissed without any order as to costs."

[5] The State Government thereafter granted only age relaxation to

the terminated teachers for the purpose of selection in vacant Group „C‟

and „D‟ posts but required them to compete for regular selection as and

when the posts are advertised. According to the appellants before us, the

original petitioners, this was in breach of the undertaking given by the State

Government before the Supreme Court. Their understanding of situation is

that the State had agreed that all those terminated teachers cannot be

accommodated in the teaching posts for want of selections, would be

automatically absorbed in Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts by not only granting

age relaxation but also without selection. The appellants, therefore, filed

the writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

The learned Judge was of the opinion that such automatic appointments

without selection cannot be permitted nor was this the intention of the

Supreme Court to permit the State to do so. Thereupon the original

petitioners have filed this appeal.

[6] Having head learned counsel for the parties and having perused

documents on record, we do not find that the appellants have made out any Page - 7 of 8

case for interference. We may recall, to solve the problem arising out of

large scale termination of teachers who had worked for over 10 years, the

State had devised a certain plan. First part of this already formed the

decision of this Court and the Supreme Court that the teachers would get

age relaxation up to the year 2023 for selection to the teaching posts and if

they are selected, they would be appointed. The other method which the

State Government wanted to apply was to accommodate these teachers in

Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts. The State, therefore, pleaded this case before the

Supreme Court. In the first affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in

April 2020, as noted, the State Government sought permission to consider

these teachers against vacant Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts by giving age

relaxations. This was expanded in a subsequent affidavit dated 22nd July

2020, where the State also showed its intention to appoint these teacher on

Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts without selections. In both these affidavits, the

State Government had made a specific prayer to allow the Government to

do so. In our opinion, it was also necessary and proper since under ordinary

circumstances in view of Articles 14 and 16, such direct recruitments

without selection process would not be permissible. It may be possible to

argue that when such a large scale problem had arisen, it was open for the

State Government to frame a scheme to solve the difficulties of thousands

of teachers and their dependant family members. However, when the entire Page - 8 of 8

issue was at large before the Supreme Court, it was otherwise also

necessary that the State Government takes the permission from the

Supreme Court to do so. In any case, having applied for the permission it

was necessary that such permission should be granted before the State

Government could have implemented its policy. Having read the judgment

of the Supreme Court dated 5th August 2020, we do not find any such

permission having been granted. In fact, one of the diary numbers under

which this affidavit was registered has been rejected. To sum up, the stand

taken by the government before the Supreme Court in the affidavits filed in

April 2020 and 22nd July 2020 was that the Government was inclined to

accommodate the terminated teachers on Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts by

relaxing age limit and without open selections. But this was subject to the

Supreme Court approving it. It was for this reason the Government had in

those affidavits made specific prayers for this purpose. It was not an

undertaking given by the Government to the Supreme Court acting upon

which the Court had disposed of the proceedings.

Under the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the appeal

and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

           ( S TALAPATRA, J )                     ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )


Sukhendu