SUDIP KUMAR DEBNATH. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Sudip Kumar Debnath.
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi, J. -
(1.) These petitions with minor differences, arise in similar background. Writ Petition(C) No.119 of 2020 is filed by eight petitioners who were appointed as Graduate Teachers by the State Government for its schools pursuant to the recruitment process initiated under advertisement dated 23.09.2009. Large number of under graduate, graduate and post graduate teachers were selected and appointed pursuant to the said advertisement. Several petitions were filed by unsuccessful candidates. The Single Judge did not disturb the appointments but issued directions to the State Government to form a committee to examine the issues of irregularities in the selection. The State Government as well as the petitioners had filed writ appeals before the High Court. All these appeals were consolidated and disposed of by a judgment dated 07.05.2014 in case of Tanmoy Nath and Others v. State of Tripura and Others; reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731. The High Court held that the new employment policy formulated by the State Government under the notification dated 30th August, 2003 was defective and, therefore, the appointments of the teachers which were made pursuant the said policy were tainted by irregularities. All the appointments were set aside. The State Government was directed to undertake fresh selection. While doing so, the Court gave two relaxations. Firstly, so that the education of the children studying in the respective schools does not suffer, the State Government was given time for completing the fresh selections and till then, the teachers would continue in the same position. Second relaxation was that the concerned teachers would have age relaxation for the new recruitment process. Entire issue was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court by the State Government. After initially staying the judgment of the High Court in case of Tanmoy Nath, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the year 2017. Thereafter extensions were granted for completion of the fresh selections and for termination of the existing teachers. Finally these extensions also ran out and large number of teachers who did not succeed in getting selected in the selection processes which were undertaken in the interregnum; were terminated. The petitioners of WP(C) No. 119/2020 are those teachers who faced such terminations. Their grievance is twofold. Firstly, they point out that they were never sent for in-service training for completion of D.El.Ed course when large numbers of similarly situated science teachers were sponsored by the Government. They point out that these science teachers who were also recruited in terms of the said employment policy dated 30th August, 2003 and some of whom are shown as respondents No. 3 to 6 by way of citing examples though there are large number of other such similarly situated science teachers; have not been terminated. According to the petitioners, this is a gross case of discrimination perpetuated by the State Government. In this context counsel for the petitioner had also argued that none of these petitioners were parties in the entire litigation in case of Tanmoy Nath (supra).
(2.) Case of the petitioners of W.P(C) No.620/2020 is substantially similar. They were also recruited as teachers in Government schools pursuant to the recruitment advertisement issued on 23.09.2009. They were also not made parties in the Tanmoy Nath cases. They have also been terminated on account of the judgment of the Division Bench as confirmed by the Supreme Court. They point out that they were engaged before the requirement of possessing D.El.Ed course pass for a qualified teacher was introduced by NCTE and in any case they all have obtained such certificates within the extended time permitted for such purpose.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath (supra) in which one of the cases involved was WP(C) No.537/2012 filed by one Amzad Hussain v. State of Tripura and the Director of School Education. In this petition, the present respondents No.3 to 6 of W.P(C)No.119/2020 were shown as respondents No.3 to 6 therein. Our attention was drawn to the contents of the said W.P(C) No. 537/2012 in which appointments of the said respondents as science teachers were challenged by the petitioner Amzad Hussain who had also applied for the same post pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State Government in the year 2010 and selection process for which was undertaken shortly thereafter which had culminated into appointments of the said respondents as Assistant Teacher (Science) by the State Government.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.