Tripura High Court
Sri Himangshu Das vs The State Of Tripura To Be Represented By ... on 19 November, 2024
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WA No.109 of 2024
Sri Himangshu Das, aged 39 years, son of Mihir Chandra Das, residence of
Village Durgapur, P.O. Paiturbazar, District- Unakoti, Kailashahar, Tripura,
Pin-799279.
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura to be represented by the Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New
Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.O. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, Pin-799010.
2. The Director of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The President, School Management Committee, Ram Krishna Siksha
Pratisthan, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799277.
4. The Headmaster & Managing Committee Secretary, Ram Krishna Siksha
Pratisthan, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799277.
5. The Assistant Headmaster, Ram Krishna Siksha Pratisthan, Kailashahar,
Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799277.
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D PURKAYASTHA
=O=R=D=E=R=
19/11/2024
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel and Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. Karnajit De, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.
[2] Petitioner, while serving as a Postgraduate teacher at
Ramkrishna Siksha Pratisthan, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura, a Grant-in-
Aid School, since 21st July, 2008, attended and acquired two years B.Ed
degree through Open Distance Learning Mode (ODL) from ICFAI
University, Tripura during the academic years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020
without seeking formal permission to enroll and acquire the B.Ed degree
from the employer. Upon completion of the course, he made a request for
entry of his additional qualification in the Service Book which was not
accepted. Therefore, he approached the Writ Court in WP(C) No.431 of
2023.
[3] The respondent-State in particular filed a counter affidavit
taking a clear stand that petitioner has recorded attendance throughout this
period in the school. It is difficult to understand as to how he attended the
examination in the month of August when his attendance in the school
register was full. He did not submit his examination routine to his authority.
Respondent-State authorities further made a categorical statement that
petitioner did not take any prior permission from the authority for pursuing
his B.Ed degree course through open distance mode during the said session.
He also did not take any station leave permission from the authority or any
admissible leave to attend the examination. He did not submit any
application to the school authority for availing leave/station leave to attend
the mandatory face to face contact session/classes of ICFAI University.
[4] Taking note of the rival submissions and stand of the parties,
the learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition in the following manner:
"Having considered the submission as advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and also having perused the record, this court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean
hands as he did not take any prior permission from the authority for
obtaining NOC for pursuing his B.ED degree course.
Moreover, the petitioner took an experience certificate from Asst. Head
Master which any teacher can take from Asst. Head Master concealing
his motto behind it. It appears to this court that the petitioner for his
own interest has fabricated the story which cannot be trusted even after
applying any conscience. Hence, this is a fit case for dismissal.
With the above observation, the instant petition stands dismissed being
devoid of merit. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
[5] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
during course of his submission has drawn the attention of this Court to the
letter dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-11) addressed to the Joint Director,
Directorate of Secondary Education by the Secretary, Managing Committee,
Ramkrishna Siksha Pratisthan School. This letter however also categorically
states that petitioner had not taken permission from the Secretary, Managing
Committee before admission in the B.Ed course. Learned senior counsel for
the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the request for
exemption made to the returning officer of the Zila Parishad and DM &
Collector, Unakoti District for granting him exemption from attending the
election process as he was scheduled to attend a workshop of the B.Ed
(ODL) course of ICFAI University between 23rd July 2019 to 26th July 2019.
He had to submit assignment on 27th July and the exams were to start from
1st August onwards. It is submitted that this request was also forwarded by
the Assistant Headmaster of the school and exemption was granted.
[6] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the
practice teaching assignments which are at (Annexure-4) in order to submit
that it was within the conscious knowledge of the Assistant Headmaster and
the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Ramkrishna Siksha
Pratisthan School that he was attending B.Ed course through ODL mode
during this period. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no
teaching work has been affected on account of attending the B.Ed course
through ODL mode. However, it is not disputed that petitioner did not make
any formal request to the competent authority of the school or the State
Government to apply for undertaking the B.Ed course through open distance
learning mode. However, he submits that petitioner's labour and effort
would be in vain if the acquisition of the B.Ed degree is not entered into his
service book. This amounts to a punishment. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, however, has not been able to show any provision under which
such a requirement can be waived.
[7] Mr. Karnajit De, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents-State has strongly opposed the prayer. He has
referred to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by them before the
learned Writ Court and also the impugned order. Learned counsel for the
State submits that petitioner never took permission from the competent
authority for enrollment in the B.Ed degree course which is a mandatory
requirement. Petitioner is serving the school as a teacher and avails the
Grant-in-aid provided by the State to the school in question. A regular
employee of any such institution funded by the State cannot take up any
part-time job or any other assignment or enroll in any course without a
formal permission from the employer. Moreover, the relevant facts are quite
stark since even during the period of his examination, the petitioner had full
attendance in the school. It is also pointed out that 1 st August, 2019 was
Thursday and was not Sunday on which there is no school work. As such,
learned Writ Court did not commit any error by refusing to interfere in the
matter. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
[8] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that at
paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated that the examination
scheduled on 1st August, 2019 was deferred. Ordinarily, examinations are
held on weekends. He also submits that petitioner may be allowed to seek
post facto approval for pursuing the B.Ed Course through ODL mode.
[9] We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and taken note of the relevant materials placed from record. We have
also gone through the impugned judgment. It is trite that a regular employee
like the petitioner who was serving as a teacher in a Grant-in-aid school i.e.
Ramkrishna Siksha Pratisthan School, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura is
required to obtain formal permission from the employer/competent authority
to engage in any course whether fulltime/part-time or open distance learning
course or also take up any other assignment or part-time job. Upon
acceptance of the offer of appointment to a regular post, the
employee/petitioner, a teacher, is in the fulltime employment of the
concerned organization. There is a salutary purpose behind it. A regular
employee of State or its instrumentality or any such organization cannot
engage in other activities which is not permissible without permission of the
employer.
[10] The learned Writ Court has dealt with the relevant factual
aspects of the matter which reveal that during the entire period, petitioner
had recorded full attendance in the school and had not taken any leave to
attend the exam of the open distance learning course run by the ICFAI
University. Permission to engage in a B.Ed course through open distance
learning cannot be implied even if the endorsements on the work assignment
chart of the petitioner by the Assistant Headmaster of the Ramkrishna Siksha
Pratisthan School and Secretary of the said School are taken into
consideration.
[11] In those circumstances, we do not find any error in the
impugned judgment calling for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is
dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to seek post facto approval for
pursuing the B.Ed Course through ODL mode, if permissible in law.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.D PURKAYASTHA) J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
DIPESH DEB Date: 2024.11.21 17:57:59
