ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"In the premises aforesaid the petitioner humbly prays that your Lordship may be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari should not be issued directing the respondents to produce all records and to quash or cancel and/or set aside the third clause of the memorandum dated 23.12.2017 issued by the Director of Secondary Education (Annexure 9) and to suitably modify the 4th Clause providing for treating the petitioner as continuing in service like he was continuing in service before the issue of this memorandum as if this memorandum was not issued at all to pay his arrears of salary accordingly.

AND

For a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service as PG teacher without break due to the memorandum dated 23.12.2017(Annexure) which was issued wrongly and to modify the 4th clause of the said memorandum providing to the petitioner the benefit of continuous service without interruption by the said memorandum and to pay his arrears salary and to count his service accordingly."

(2.)Mr. K N Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, states that the case of the writ petitioners is squarely covered with the directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No.51 of 2014 along with 11 other petitions titled as Tanmoy Nath and Ors Vrs. The State of Tripura & others and more specifically directions contained in Para 127 of the judgment thereof.
(3.)After the matter was heard for some time, learned senior counsel for the petitioners' states that petitioners would be content if a direction is issued to the State to consider and decide the petitioner's representation which they shall be making in due course. Mr. M Debbarma, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State, has no objection to the same.
;