Tripura High Court
Unknown vs High Court Of Tripura on 5 March, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WA. No.198 of 2021
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. K. Debbarma, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
05.03.2024
Heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
appellants also heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
K. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
The present appeal has been filed under Chapter-VA(2)(2) of the
High Court Rules, from the judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed in WP(C)
No.706 of 2019 allowing the writ petition.
The appellants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Admit appeal & call for records.
B. Pass order setting aside the judgment and order dated 09.04.2021 passed in
WP(C) No.706 of 2019.
C. Pass order staying the operation of the judgment & order dated 09.04.2021
passed in WP(C) No.706 of 2019."
The petitioners are teachers (PGT/AT) in Government Schools. In
2003, vide applications from the interested teachers of Government Secondary and
Higher Secondary Schools, the petitioners had been invited for service utilization
on deputation at District Institute of Education and Training [DIET, for short.] In
2004, it was decided for appointment to the post of Lecturer, DIET on contract for
37 posts (Newly created 20+ available vacancies 17.) Accordingly, 22 candidates
were appointed to the post of Lecturer, DIET on a contractual basis in December
2004. 08 (Eight) of them continued to perform as Lecturer DIET on a contractual
basis and finally, they were appointed to the post of Lecturer, DIET on regular
basis. The three petitioners earlier filed writ petitions WP(C) No. 06/2014, WP(C)
No. 722/2018, and WP(C) No. 214/2018 for their absorption as lecturers in DIET
as the appointment of those 8 (eight) numbers of lecturers.
The respondents categorically denied and disputed the contentions of
the petitioner by filing counter affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner holds
the post of Post Graduate Teacher and their services were placed under F. R. 11 at
the disposal of the Principal, DIET, Agartala with the scale of pay and post held by
them i.e. Post Graduate Teacher moreover, their placement is subject to the
condition of the Memorandum No F.3.(1- 99)DSE/2000, dated 17.07.2003 with
specific term and conditions and that the petitioners may be withdrawn from DIET
at any time, when their services are not required in DIET. Thus, the petitioners are
bound by the foregoing terms and conditions mentioned in the memorandum. The
stated eight persons have been offered to the post of Lecturer, DIETs on contract
basis under F.R.11 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee against the
Advertisement (ICAT-C-1940) dated, 06.02.2004. The petitioner did not apply for
the post of Lecturer of DIET on contract basis as like the eight Lecturers of DIET
engaged on contractual basis as the petitioner was enjoying the higher pay package
of the scale of Post Graduate Teacher.
The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner is also entitled to
get similar treatment as those of eight Lecturers who were absorbed under the
DIET. The State-respondents were directed to send the names of the petitioners to
the Council of Ministers that the Council of Ministers shall consider the case of
the petitioners herein in the line of those eight contractual Lecturers exploring all
possibilities, keeping in mind the DIET needs the service of all the petitioners and
vacant posts still exist under DIET. That, being aggrieved by the decision of the
learned Single Judge the State Respondents intended to file Writ Appeal which is a
meritorious one having good grounds.
It has been submitted by both sides that during the pendency of the
writ appeal the writ petitioner who was there on deputation in another department
has been now repatriated to the parent department. In view of the said submission
and in view of the subsequent development, nothing survives for adjudication in
the present writ petition since the writ petitioner is there with the parent
department. Hence, the absorption/regularization in the other department where
the writ petitioner was erstwhile worked becomes non-est and thus, the litigation
becomes infructuous and the writ petition needs to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous and
with the above observation the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stands closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A. Ghosh
ANJAN Digitally signed by
ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.03.11
17:16:16 +05'30'
