Tripura High Court
Sri Alindra Jamatia vs Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 23 of 2025
Sri Alindra Jamatia
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council and Ors
---Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P Roy Barma, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Debbarma, Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 12.03.2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment and Order (Oral)
(T. Amarnath Goud, J)
This is an appeal under Rule B(A) (General Rules for Writ Appeals) of
Chapter VIII of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023, read with Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, against the impugned Order dated 13.02.2025 passed in WP(C)2
of 2025.
[2] It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is serving as Kokborok
Teacher under TTAADC. Alex Jamatia, 11 years old, is the disabled son of the
appellant. Son of the Appellant is suffering from 80% speech and hearing disability. The
appellant has been transferred by order, dated, 18.12.2024, passed by the Principal
Officer, TTAADC, Khumlung, from Mailuma Model JB School under Inspector of
School, Mandwi, TTAADC to Gobinda Bari SB School under Inspector of Schools,
Chawmanu, TTAADC. The appellant submitted representation, dated, 23.12.2024, for
revocation of the aforesaid transfer order, as being the care giver of the disabled minor
son, the appellant is exempted from routine/rotational transfer. But no response has been
given to the representation. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P(C) 2 of 2025 before the
this Court. Though initially the learned Single Judge stayed the transfer order, dated,
18.12.2024, but ultimately dismissed the writ petition. Hence the appellant filed Writ
Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.
[3] It is represented by the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to
take into consideration that being the care giver of the disabled minor son, the appellant
is exempted from routine/rotational transfer in terms of the Memo dated 08.10.2018
issued by the Director (Res), the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training), Govt. of India and Memo, dated 15.11.2021 &
29.11.2021, issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, GA (P&T)
Department.
[4] It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that learned Single
Judge failed to take into consideration that the impugned office order dated 18.12.2024
issued by the Principal Officer, Education, TTAADC, has not been issued in public
interest and also has been issued against the letter and spirit of the Right of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and Memo, dated 18.12.2018 issued by the Govt. of India and
Memo, dated 29.11.2021 issued by the Govt. of Tripura.
[5] In course of his submission, it is further contended that the learned Single
Judge failed to take into consideration that the appellant was transferred vide Office
order dated 17.05.2023 issued by the Principal Officer, Education, TTAADC and after
receiving the representation from the appellant for modification of the office order,
dated 17.05.2023 on the ground of disability of his younger son Alex Jamatia, the
respondents considered the representation of the appellant and officer order dated
17.05.2023 so far the transfer of the appellant was concerned was not given effect to.
Further he prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge.
[6] During the course of the submission, Mr. P Roy Barman appearing for the
appellant has pointed two issues. "(i) the petitioner was transferred (ii) because of the
misconduct of the petitioner, disciplinary proceeding was initiated." The order passed
in the writ petition which is the subject matter in the present writ appeal, according to
the petitioner, does not touch the main issues that too the point which is raised in the
contention made in the counter affidavit by the respondent to say that the respondents
are ready to consider the case of the petitioner for transferring him to any other
neighbouring district or within the district. In view of the same, the said issues were not
considered by the learned Single Judge. In the present appeal, the appellant is seeking
the indulgence of the court challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
[7] On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
contended before this court that the impugned order is just and proper and needs no
interference from this court. He further prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
[8] Heard.
[9] Admittedly it is seen from the record, prima facie unless a case is made
out, it is not for any administrative ground or any mala fide intention or in contravention
of law, the court would not normally interfere. Here is the case, where the case has not
been made out on the point of transfer except the administrative ground on some other
mala fide intention and also contrary to law, the said transfer has been affected.
[10] This court thinks it apposite to reproduce herein below the para no.6 of the
counter affidavit of the respondents as appended with the writ petition being WP(C) 2 of
2025 for ready reference:
6. That, in view of the contention made from paragraph 8 to 20 of the present
writ petition regarding the transfer of the writ petitioner and also per the order
of this court the transfer order dated 18.12.2024 was kept in abeyance until
further order of this Hon'ble High Court and the writ petitioner transfer order
may be modified under the same District or other District which feasible to
communicate to Agartala City if there is few numbers of Teachers from his
present place of posting school considering his disable son health condition.
[11] In view of the above and also and in view of the contention of the
respondents in the counter affidavit, this court grants liberty to the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for transferring the petitioner from the existing place
of posting to any other suitable place. On the other point of disciplinary action, it is seen
from the record and in all fairness Mr. P Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has
submitted before this court that on the ground of certain misconduct, the respondents
have issued a show cause notice to which the reply has been submitted and no action has
been initiated. This court leaves it open to the respondents to complete the disciplinary
proceeding, if any, and take a decision as expeditiously as possible in accordance with
law.
[12] With the above observation, the instant writ appeal stands disposed of.
The impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed in WP(C)2 of 2025 by the learned Single
Judge stands modified to the extent as indicated above. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands
vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
B.Palit, J T. Amarnath Goud, J
Dipak
DIPAK by DIPAK DAS
DAS 16:48:24 +05'30'
