State Of Tripura vs Ramu Debnath And Ors

Akil Kureshi, CJ

[1] These appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th April, 2019 in case of Ramu Debnath Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.,WP(C) No.536/2019 and connected petitions.

[2] Facts being identical may be noted from Writ Appeal No.199/2019.

[3] The respondent herein was the petitioner of WP(C) No.536/2019. He was engaged as a Graduate Teacher by the State of Tripura for the Government schools in the year 2010. Large number of recruitments were made around the same time by the State of Tripura. A Division Bench of this Court, in case of Tanmoy Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731, found that such recruitment process suffered from various irregularities. The Court held that the entire policy of the State Government was bad because it contained no guidelines. Resultantly, all the selections were set aside. The Government would make fresh recruitments and appoint teachers latest by 31st December, 2014. While doing so, in order to see that the education of young children does not suffer, the Court directed the concerned teachers whose selections have been set aside shall continue to function in their present place of posting till 31st May, 2014. In paragraph 125 of the said judgment the Court further provided as under :

"125. We would also like to make it clear that other than the benefits indicated by us above there can be no reservation/preference on the basis of age. There shall be no preference to dependent government servants or retired government employee or retrenched employees etc. There can be no reservation for linguistic or religious minorities or on area wise basis. It is further made clear that if the persons who are selected in the previous selection are again selected then the service rendered by them earlier shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, pension and all other purposes."

[4] The decision of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) was challenged by the State Government before the Supreme Court. Directions contained in paragraph 123 of the judgment for fresh selection and recruitment were stayed by an order dated 4th August, 2014. On 29th March, 2017 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Government but provided fresh deadline for completing the selection process which would expire on 31st December, 2017 and provided that till the fresh process is completed the teachers already appointed shall continue. Since the Government did not complete the process, by an order dated 14th December, 2017 extension was granted up to 30th June, 2018 further providing that "on 31st December, 2017 the tenure of the incumbents will come to an end. Thereafter, their appointment will only for six months on ad-hoc basis on such fresh terms as the State Government may impose.

Thereafter, none of the said incumbents will continue."

On 1st November, 2018 Supreme Court passed yet another order providing that "having considered the matter, we are of the view that at this stage, we ought to permit the State of Tripura to continue to avail of the services of the terminated teachers until the end of the academic session 2020, meaning the academic session 2019-2020."

[5] The State of Tripura had initiated process for filling up the vacancies for the teachers in various cadres. The petitioner had applied, was selected and has been appointed as a Graduate Teacher pursuant to such fresh regular selection process. His appointment was issued in the year 2018. As per the decision of this Court, in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) he expected that upon such appointment his past service for the purpose of pay protection, seniority etc. would be preserved as directed in paragraph 125 of the judgment. The Government refused to do so. Hence, he had filed the said petition. Other connected petitions were also filed by similar teachers who were selected and appointed through fresh selection process on the same posts which they were previously holding which were set aside by this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra).

[6] The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petitions. The learned Judge noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in case of Babul Debnath and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura, WP(C) No.435/2018 dated 21st January 2019, had under similar circumstances, given suitable directions to the State Government for protection of the past services of those petitioners in terms of paragraph 125 of the judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra).

[7] In our opinion, the controversy, therefore, should have rested at that stage. Once the Division Bench of this Court had already given directions for protection of past service [in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra)] and thereafter such directions were reiterated in later decision in case of Babul Debnath and Ors.(supra), the Government should not have driven the petitioners to further litigation. In the present group of appeals, however, learned Government Advocate raised a curious contention to distinguish the cases of these petitioners from the case of Babul Debnath and Ors.(supra). He submitted that all these petitioners were appointed pursuant to fresh selection process after December, 2017. Since the Supreme Court had provided that all appointments after December, 2017 would stand terminated, the protection of past service would not be able to those who were appointed subsequent to the said date.

[8] In our opinion, the contention is wholly meritless. The entire sequence of facts and events would reveal that Division Bench of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) while setting aside appointments of large number of teachers desired that if these teachers ultimately offer themselves for fresh selection which would be based on fresh guidelines to be issued by the Government, prove their merit, get selected and are appointed, their past services should not be wiped out. This is the basic philosophy and the purport of issuing directions in paragraph 125 of the judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra). Merely because the fresh selection process was not completed before 31st December, 2017, the concerned teachers cannot be made to suffer. If at all, the responsibility was on the Government to complete such selection process expeditiously. For whatever reason, if the Government failed to complete the selection process and on account of which the appointments were not made in some cases till 31st December, 2017, the concerned teachers cannot be penalized for the same.

[9] Even otherwise, when the Supreme Court put a deadline of 31st December, 2017 beyond which the teachers' engagement would be on ad hoc basis, it was to send a greater sense of urgency on part of the administration to complete the process in full earnest. The Supreme Court did not desire to whittle down the effect of the directions contained in paragraph 125 of the judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra). Irrespective of the date of appointment, a teacher who was subsequently selected and appointed to a post in the same cadre which he was previously holding would be entitled to the protection contained in paragraph 125 of the case Tanmoy Nath(supra).

In the result, all appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.