Smt. Ambika Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 465 Tri

                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                        W.A.No.163 of 2021

Smt. Ambika Sarkar,
daughter of Subodh Sarkar,
wife of Sri Manik Deb,
resident of near Bishalgarh Sub Divisional Hospital,
P.S. Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala
                                                       ..........Appellant(s)
                                Versus

1. The State of Tripura and Others
to be represented by the Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010

2. The State Project Director,
Samagra Siksha (Director of Elementary Education),
Government of Tripura, Siksha Bhavan,
Agartala, West Tripura

3. The District Project Coordinator,
(District Education Officer), Belonia, South Tripura

4. District Project Coordinator,
Samagra Siksha Abhijan,
District Education Officer (I/C),
Belonia, South Tripura
                                                   ..........Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
                                 Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                 Ms. A. Debbarma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
                                 Mr. S. Saha, Adv.
Date of Hearing and
Judgment & Order            :    31.05.2023
Whether fit for reporting   :    YES





                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

                                Judgment & Order

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the

respondents.

2. The appellant has filed the instant writ appeal against the

judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.841 of

2020 dated 08.01.2021. The case of the appellant is that Samagra Sikha

Abhijan is an overarching programme for the school education extending from

pre-school to Class-XII. The scheme has been launched prepared with the

broader goal of improving school effectiveness measured in terms of equal

opportunities for schooling and equitable learning outcomes. It subsumes the

three schemes of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha

Abhiyan and Teacher Education. It is run in Tripura through the Elementary

Education Department, Government of Tripura.

3. The appellant was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher under the

Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura and being so

appointed she joined in the post on 26.08.2010. In pursuance to the common

judgment and order dated 07.05.2014, passed in WP(C)No.51 of 2014, in

Tanmoy Nath versus State of Tripura and Others and similar other writ

petitions appointment of the appellant was terminated w.e.f.31.12.2017 and

thereafter, the appellant has been on ad-hoc appointment.

4. In pursuance to the advertisement published in Dainik Sambad

dated 09.05.2018, the appellant offered her candidature for the post of

URP(English) by submitting written application to the District Project

Coordinator (District Education Officer), Samagrah Siksha Abhijan, South

District with all particulars and documents.

5. The appellant obtained Bachelor of Arts Degree from Tripura

University in the year 2001. Thereafter, the appellant obtained Master Degree

in English in the year 2007 from IGNOU in second division securing 47.18%.

Thereafter, the appellant obtained Bachelor of Education Degree in the year

2014 from the Tripura University securing 59%. While the appellant offered her

candidature for the post of URP (English) in writing against the Clause 11 of

the said application the appellant has stated that she is in service under the

Directorate of Secondary Education being posted at Purba Gakulnagar, H.S.

School, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala.

6. The appellant was selected by fair and transparent selection

process for the post of URP/BRP and in pursuance to such selection, the District

Project Coordinator, District Education Officer (I/C), Belonia, South Tripura,

vide memo dated 03.10.2019 engaged the appellant in the post of URP

(English) with posting at Belonia Government English Medium URC under

Samagra Siksha Abhijan Scheme as per terms and conditions mentioned in the

memo. The engagement was on contract basis @ Rs.21,740/- as remuneration

per month and the memo also stipulated that the appellant will be required to

join the post in between 16th October to 18th October, 2019 and tenure of

engagement will be purely on contract basis primarily for one year or till

cessation of Samagra Siksha Scheme whichever is earlier.

7. The appellant by submitting in writing on 16.10.2019 to the

District Project Coordinator, District Education Officer (I/C), Belonia, South

District, stated that she is delighted being engaged as URP(English) as

communicated vide memo dated 03.10.2019. Stating so, the appellant has

stated that her daughter is only three years old and she is studying at St.

Josephs Pre Nursery School and Academic session is from April to March and

final exam will be held in the last week of March, 2019. So during the midterm

of the session, it would be difficult to shift her school. The appellant has further

stated that she is currently under treatment for LS Spine Back pain and she has

been advised by Dr. V.P. Singh, Physiotherapist, Apollo Hospital, Chennai to

complete the Physiotherapy treatment and not take journey. Stating so, the

appellant requested the District Project Coordinator to extend her joining time.

Along with the representation, the appellant enclosed necessary documents.

After overcoming her difficulties, the appellant on 27.04.2020 in writing

informed the District Project Coordinator (District Education Officer(I/C).

Samagra Siksha Bhijan that she has recovered from her illness and now she is

in a position to join in pursuance to the memo dated 03.10.2019 by which she

has been engaged in the post of URP(English) with posting at Belonia,

Government English Medium H.S. School. With the letter dated 27.04.2020, the

appellant enclosed medical illness certificate and fitness certificate with other

relevant documents.

8. Thereafter, the Joint Director, Samagra Siksha Abhijan vide letter

dated 18.05.2020 informed the District Project Coordinator, South Tripura

District that State Project District, Samagra Siksha, Tripura has approved the

prayer made by the appellant for allowing to her to join URP (English) and in

view of such approval, the District Project Coordinator, South Tripura District

was requested to allow joining of the appellant in the post of URP English as

per prescribed manner. Thereafter, the District Project Coordinator, District

Education (In Charge), Belonia vide memo dated 18.05.2020, instructed the

appellant to join the office of the URC Coordinator, Belonia, Government

English Medium H.S. URC within 27.05.2020 without fail. Thereafter, the

appellant joined on 19.05.2020 in the post of URP by submitting joining report

to the Coordinator, Belonia Government English Medium H.S. School HRC.

9. Thereafter, all on a sudden, by the memo dated 19.05.2020 the

State Project Coordinator asked the District Project Coordinator, South Tripura,

to give some information regarding the appellant and by the said memo, the

approval conveyed regarding the acceptance of joining of the appellant was

kept in abeyance with direction not to allow the appellant to join the

contractual post under Samagra Siksha until further order. All on a sudden the

State Project Director, communicated to the District Project Coordinator, South

Tripura, to inform him, that the joining of the appellant in the post of URP

could not be accepted on the ground stated in the letter. In the said letter it is

stated that vide letter dated 18.05.2020, the State Project Director, conveyed

acceptance of the prayer of the appellant herein for accepting her joining.

10. Thereafter, verbal complaint was received against the appellant

and stating so in the letter it is mentioned that though illness was a ground for

delayed joining but it is ascertained that concerned applicant discharged duties

up to 31st of March, 2020 as ad-hoc teacher, Purba Bakulnagar H.S. School,

Bishalgarh. On this ground by the said letter, the decision of the said State

Project Director not to accept the joining of the appellant was communicated.

11. By the letter dated 25.08.2020 the State Project Director,

Samagra Siksha Tripura communicated to the District Project Coordinator

(District Education Officer), South Tripura, Belonia. In that letter, it is stated

that the ground for extension of date of joining does not corroborate with the

facts and for this reason, prayer for extension of joining time by the appellant

is regretted. In para-4 of the letter it is stated though ground of illness was

taken for extension of joining time by the appellant but it is ascertained that

she discharged her duties up to 31.03.2020 as Teacher (ad-hoc) in Purba

Gakulnagar H.S. School, Bishalgarh.

12. From the impugned letter dated 25.08.2020 it is very much clear

that there is total non application of mind by the State Project Director. The

appellants prayer for extension of joining time was based on two genuine

grounds, one regarding pre nursery schooling of her daughter and difficulty in

making admission in a new school in the mid of the session. Another ground

was appellant's medical advice asking the appellant to avoid motor journey and

ongoing treatment. The appellant never stated that she is bed ridden. She has

stated that she is under medical treatment. It is not in her prayer the appellant

stated that she is bed ridden. It appears that the State Project Director did not

consider the facts and there has been non-application of mind. Without giving

the appellant any opportunity to state that she did not resort to hide and seek

game in seeking extension of joining time and on genuine grounds she made

prayer for extension of joining time which was accepted by the concerned

authority, the joining of the appellant was not accepted to the prejudice of the

appellant.

13. The appellant in her request for extension of joining time did not

state that she is in bed. The appellant sought for extension of joining time on

two grounds. Her daughter cannot be shifted to another School in the middle

of pre nursery session and another ground was that under the advice of doctor

she is required to complete the physiotherapy course and not travel motor

journey. As the appellant was required to join in the post of URP at Belonia,

she would be required to take her three years daughter with her, but her

daughter was a student of St. Joseph School at Bishalgarh, Sepahijala and for

this reason, shifting of school is required and in the midst of academic session

such shifting of school is not advisable. As the appellant was serving on ad-hoc

at Purba Gakulnagar H.S. School, it was within the vicinity of her residence in

Bishalgarh without requiring Motor Journey.

14. Being satisfied with the grounds taken by the appellant for

extending the joining time, the respondents extended the joining time and

thereafter instructed the appellant to join by 27.05.2020 and in pursuance to

such instruction, the appellant had joined on 18.05.2020. Thereafter, impugned

memo dated 19.05.2020 and letter dated 25.08.2020, were issued behind the

back of the appellant without giving for extension of joining time might not be

recalled as there was no such ground for recall. The appellant joined on

18.05.2020 and there was no reason for subsequent withdrawal of the

extension of joining time on extraneous ground and without application of

mind, without considering the real facts and without giving the appellant

opportunity to explain that she did not make any misrepresentation of facts or

suppression of facts in seeking extension of joining time, joining of the

appellant has been regretted. Though the selection and subsequent

engagement of the appellant in the post of URP is on contractual basis initial

for one year but there is every likelihood, that the tenure would be extended as

the tenure is co-terminus with the project and the project is likely to continue

for many years. Those who have been engaged on contract basis initially for a

year under Samagra Sikha Abhijan have been continuing till date.

15. In the writ petition the appellant has sought for quashing and

cancelling the memo dated 19.05.2020 and letter dated 25.08.2020 issued by

the State Project Director, Samagra Sikhsa, Tripura whereby and where under

the extension of joining time, allowed to the appellant for joining in the post of

URP(English) being selected through fair and proper selection, has been kept in

abeyance and withdrawn respectively to the prejudice of the appellant without

giving any opportunity to the appellant that extension of joining time once

allowed was not called for revocation.

16. According to learned G.A. the application of the appellant for

extension of joining having two receipts one of her illness and other is her

daughter's admission in school. That particulars documents were not annexed

with the writ petition. According to learned G.A. what to be believed and what

not to be believed the learned Single Judge had come to a conclusion that the

materials on record would suggest that the respondent did consider the case of

the appellant sympathetically for extension of time for reporting for duty on the

ground that she was suffering from acute illness which request was supported

by medical papers. Such request was granted. However, upon complaints being

received the administration carried out further inquiries and it was revealed

that during such period when the appellant had claimed extension for reporting

on the basis of her acute illness, she was actually discharging duties as a

teacher in Government school. The authority therefore decided not to allow the

appellant to report for duties. The appellant was engaged as a contractual

worker and has no tenure protection. When it is found that she had given

inaccurate reason for extension of time for reporting for duty, the extension

granted was withdrawn. No ground for interference is made out. Hence,

according to learned G.A. the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is

just and proper.

Heard both sides.

17. According to this Court (1) The notification is issued for the

purpose of employment for a period of one year during 2019 which has expired

in 2020, so by afflux of time, the very purpose of appointment which is issued

comes to an end by expiry of the scheme or one year whichever is earlier.

(2) The petitioner has categorically indicated in the affidavit and

as well in the letter seeking extension of time that she requires some time to

report to the duty since the child is a student in St. Josephs Pre Nursery School

and she was unwell and as per the medical advice she requires rest and she is

not supposed to travel. Though, initially, this has been accepted by the

respondent authorities and later on, she was restrained from reporting to the

duty placing on an enquiry report which says that the petitioner was working in

a school during the period where she was sought for extension of her reporting

to the job. This action of the petitioner is unjust. This has been categorically

indicated in the impugned order dated 25.08.2020. The petitioner in the

affidavit has not stated that she was not working during the said period in any

other school as alleged in the impugned order. In the absence of denial of the

same, this Court draws a negative inference against the petitioner and opines

that the petitioner has suppressed facts and also has not approached this Court

with clean hands. As such, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the

learned Single Judge and accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed

upholding the order of the learned Single Judge.

18. Since it reflects upon the conduct of the petitioner with regard to

the suppression of fact, this Court cautions the petitioner. The petitioner is left

free without imposing any costs, since, she is an unemployed woman having a

minor child, a lenient view is taken.

In terms of the above, the present appeal is dismissed confirming

the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

                           JUDGE                                                     JUDGE




Sabyasachi B