SANJAY KAROL, C.J. - (1.)Learned counsel, jointly prayed that out of these bunch of writ petitions, 3(three) petitions, i.e. WP(C) No.1040 of 2019, titled as Sri Bijoy Krishna Saha and others vs. The State of Tripura and others, WP(C) No739 of 2019, titled as Sri Asit Pal vs. The State of Tripura and another, and WP(C) No.1200 of 2019, titled as Sri Ashish Dhar and others vs. The State of Tripura and others, be taken up as lead cases.
(2.)In WP(C) No.1040 of 2019, Mr. Sajiv Sen, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel appearing for the instant writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "instant petitioners"), has made the following submissions:
(a) Instant petitioners were appointed to the posts of undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate teachers in the year 2010/2014;

(b) In none of the petitions/proceedings either before this Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, instant petitioners were parties. The only exception being M.A. No.1726/2018 in SLP(C) Nos.18993-19049/2014 (XIV) which was permitted to be withdrawn reserving liberty to approach this Court vide order dated 02.08.2019;

(c) Instant petitioners were never ever impleaded as parties in any one of the proceedings either before this Court or Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Also they had no notice of pendency of such proceedings;

(d) As such, instant petitioners cannot be bound by the decision rendered by this Court in Sri Tanmay Nath and others vs. The State of Tripura and others, (2014) 2 TLR 731;

(e) In any case, in para-127 of the judgment rendered in Tanmay Nath (supra), the Court itself protected the services of the instant petitioners, for there is prospective application of the judgment. Relying upon the decision rendered in Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited vs. K.P. Sharma and others, (2014) 8 SCC 866 (2 Judge Bench), it is argued that in opposing the instant petitions, State cannot be permitted to take a contradictory stand;

(f) As such, instant petitioners cannot be bound by the actions taken by the State in issuing memorandums dated 23.12.2017, 04.04.2019; and

(g) All teachers, "including those 10,323" whose services stand terminated, be held to be in regular service and entitled to all consequential benefits.

(3.)Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.739 of 2019 and other connected matters, submitted that;
(a) his clients were appointed in March, 2010 before which date they had already acquired the eligibility in terms of notification issued by the State of Tripura, as required under the Provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "NCTE Act");

(b) in terms of the selection process undertaken by the State, his clients were appointed as graduate teachers;

(c) his clients were never ever informed of the pendency of any proceedings or impleaded as parties therein and as such, his clients would not be bound by the decision dated 07.05.2014 rendered by this Court in Tanmay Nath (supra) [WP(C) No.51 of 2014 & other connected matters], as affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos.18993-19049/2014 decided on 29.03.2017; (d) also petitioner's representations stood summarily rejected.

;