SATYA KR. DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are not pressing their challenge against the orders of termination dated 31.03.2020.

(2.) Petitions arise in following background which I have recorded from WP(C) No.444/2020. In the government schools in the State of Tripura there were large number of vacancies of teachers at various levels such as Under-Graduate, Graduate and post Graduate teachers. Advertisement was issued in the year 2006 notifying various vacant posts of teachers in the said categories. However, this selection process did not result in appointment of any of the teachers. Instead, combining these unfilled vacancies and other vacancies which arose in the interregnum, the Government issued advertisements on 23.09.2009 notifying 4856 vacancies of Graduate teachers and 4629 vacancies of Under-Graduate teachers. These selections would be regulated by the Employment Policy of the Government published in the year 2003. All the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Under- Graduate teachers. They were selected and appointed as Under-Graduate teachers, initially on temporary basis, in the year 2010. The appointments of the petitioners and large number of other similarly situated teachers ran into legal controversy. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge appeal was carried to the Division Bench by the State Government. The Division Bench in case of Tanmoy Nath and others v. State of Tripura and others reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731, struck down of such appointments holding them to be illegal and arbitrary. While doing so, in the interest of the students, limited protection was granted to the teachers who were already appointed. The Government was directed to complete the fresh selection process of the teachers by 31st December, 2014 and till such time, the existing teachers would continue on their present posts. Following portion of the judgment may be noted.

(3.) The State Government as well as the affected teachers challenged the said judgment of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court. Initially the judgment of the Division Bench was stayed. All the petitioners and other similarly situated teachers continued in service under the interim protection of the Supreme Court. Finally the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by an order dated 29.03.2017. Only modification made in the judgment of the Division Bench was the time granted for completing the fresh selection process of the teachers. Such time was extended up to 31.12.2017 and till such time the teachers already appointed would continue. These time limits were extended by the Supreme Court from time to time. Finally the extension in one form or the other was granted till 31.03.2020.