Smt. Mandira Das vs The Tripura University And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 672 Tri

                                     Page 1 of 3




                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                            WP(C) NO.25 OF 2023

      Smt. Mandira Das
                                                          ...... Petitioner(s)
                      Vs.

      The Tripura University and anr.
                                                      ...... Respondent (s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Debnath, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T. Debbarma, Advocate.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 22.08.2023.

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

This present writ petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India and the case of the petitioner

herein is that way back in the year 2013, the petitioner was

engaged in service on year to year basis as a contractual worker at

a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner

rendered the service till the 2020 COVID period, thereafter, she

was not permitted to continue her service. Aggrieved thereby, the

present writ petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mr. S.S.Dey, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr.T. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents-Tripura University.

3. During the course of the argument, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner pointed out a letter addressed by Joint

Secretary, Union of India vide D.O. No.M-11011/08/2020-Media

dated March 20, 2020. The sum and substance of the said letter is

the general observation of the Joint Secretary that in view of the

crisis due to the COVID pandemic, employment should be taken

care of in favour of the employees. In reference to this letter,

learned counsel pressed before this Court that the discontinuation

of the service of the petitioner is unjust and she should be

permitted to continue in service.

4. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

5. The petitioner failed to place on record the

appointment orders extending the service of the petitioner from

year to year. The petitioner has also not placed on record, any

such information to show that her service was discontinued. To the

surprise of this Court, the petitioner has placed on record, the

minutes recorded amongst the Board Members of the University

with their signature and office endorsement, to which, the

petitioner cannot lay her hand. But to the surprise, the same is

obtained, and with what methods the same has been obtained

stands unexplained. When this Court asked the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner as to how the petitioner being contract

labour could obtain such documents from the office of the

University, there was no answer. In view of the same, this Court

has no hesitation to draw an adverse inference against the

petitioner for obtaining the documents unofficially and filing them

unauthorizedly and also filing the same in this writ petition.

However, it is not for this Court to express any opinion and even to

draw inferences without leading evidence which may not be

proper. Hence, this Court is not expressing any opinion on such

filing of unauthorized documents before this Court.

6. Since there is no impugned order which is under

challenge, this Court finds that no mandamus can be issued in this

present matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit

and the same is dismissed. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated.

Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.

JUDGE

suhanjit

RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2023.08.25 13:52:40 SINGHA +05'30'