Ajoy Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 5 August, 2020


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Ajoy Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 5 August, 2020

Author: Uday Umesh Lalit

Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

          Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
          Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.
                                                                                                   1

                                                                           NON-REPORTABLE

                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           CIVIL APPEAL NO.2868 OF 2020
                                          (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9174 of 2020)
                                                   (@ D.No.1298 of 2020)



                         Ajoy Debbarma and others                                   … Appellants

                                                          Versus

                         State of Tripura and others                             … Respondents

                                                          WITH

                                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.2869 OF 2020
                                          (Arising out of SLP(C) No.1125 of 2020)

                                                          WITH

                                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.2870-2871 OF 2020
                                       (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9176-9177 of 2020)
                                                   (@D.No.1324 of 2020)

                                                          WITH

                                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.2872 OF 2020
                                          (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9178 of 2020)
                                                   (@D.No.1348 of 2020)

                                                          WITH

Signature Not Verified
                                            CIVIL APPEAL NO.2873 OF 2020
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
                                          (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9179 of 2020)
Date: 2020.08.06
12:40:54 IST
Reason:
                                                   (@ D.No.2268 of 2020)

                                                          WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.
                                                                                        2

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.2875-2898 OF 2020
                     (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9181-9204 of 2020)
                                (@ D.No.8397 of 2020)

                                            WITH

                          CIVIL APPEAL NO.2899 OF 2020
                        (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9205 of 2020)
                                 (@ D.No.8799 of 2020)


                                            WITH

                          CIVIL APPEAL NO.2874 OF 2020
                        (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9180 of 2020)
                                 (@ D.No.7994 of 2020)

                                            WITH

      MISC.APPLN.D.No.11372 of 2020 IN SLP(C)Nos.18993-19049 OF 2014


                                     JUDGEMNT

     Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated

03.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.1040 of 2019 and all other connected matters.

3. Selection of 10,323 teachers made by the Government of Tripura,

pursuant to advertisements issued in the years 2002, 2006 and 2009 was

subject matter of challenge before the High Court of Tripura in Sri
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

3

Tanmoy Nath & others vs. The State of Tripura & others 1. While

accepting the challenge, it was held by the High Court that the selection

was contrary to the provisions of the National Council for Teacher

Education Act, 1993 and the relevant policies and that the appointments

were arbitrary and illegal. It was found that the selection was irrational

and illogical and that it suffered from nepotism and favouritism. The

conclusions of the High Court were:-

“116. We live in a country which is governed by the rule of
law. The action of each and every official or Government
functionary has to be in accordance with the Constitution.
The rule of law is the golden thread which runs through our
Constitution. The two most important facets of the rule of
law are fairness and equality. Every citizen has a right to
equal opportunity of employment and equal treatment at
the time of selection. Nobody can deny this right to any
citizen of the country and if such right is denied, then this
Court shall step in to ensure that justice is done.

117. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India clearly
provide that there should be equality to all, especially in
terms of matters of employments. Reservations or
preferences by whatsoever name called can be granted only
in terms of the Constitution and not at the whims and
fancies of the Government. The selection process in all
cases should be transparent and above board. There should
be clear cut guidelines laid down as to how the interview
boards are to award marks to the candidates. This cannot be
left to the discretion of the members of the interview board.

Even in those cases where the Apex Court has upheld the
selection of candidates on interviews, the Court has insisted
that proper record should be maintained so that it can be
determined how the selection has been made. In the present
case, the less said about the selection process the better. We
with regard to every category of teachers and with every
sub-division/division have given examples which clearly
show that there was no method followed by the State in

1 (2014) 2 TLR 731
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

4

making appointments and it is more than apparent to us that
the appointments have been made on totally extraneous
basis without considering the future of the poor students or
the aspirations of the unemployed youth. The whole
selection process was a cruel joke on the youth of Tripura.”

3.1 While accepting the challenge, the High Court observed:-

“121. … …The selections have been totally unfair. The
selections have not been made in a transparent manner. The
citizens of this country have not been treated equally. Most
of the clauses of the policy are illegal and unconstitutional.
The entire policy is bad because it gives no guidelines and,
therefore, the entire selection will have to be, must be and
is accordingly set aside.

122. Though we have set aside the selections, we are
concerned with the education of the small children who are
innocent and have no concern with the illegalities of the
selection. We, therefore, direct that the teachers whose
selections have been set aside shall continue to function in
their present place of postings till 31.12.2014, i.e. the end
of the academic session of this year.

123. The State on or before 31.12.2014 must complete a
fresh process of selection of teachers in all categories. In
view of the discussions held above, we direct that the State
should frame a new Employment Policy within two months
from today and shall carry out selections in accordance
with the fresh policy as early as possible and not later than
31.12.2014.”

3.2. In the end, the High Court issued following directions:-

“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
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

5

selected then the service rendered by them earlier shall be
counted for the purpose of seniority, pension and all other
purposes.

126. We may make it clear that the benefit to the candidates
on the ground of being needy shall not be granted on the
basis of the BPL certificates since we have found that there
are no guidelines for issuing the BPL certificates. Other
guidelines can also be laid down so that the needy can be
identified properly.

127. Since we have set aside the revised employment
policy which applies to a large category of posts and not
merely to teachers, we would like to make it clear that our
judgment shall be prospective in nature and shall not affect
the appointments already made unless the said
appointments are already under challenge before the Court
on the ground that the employment policy is illegal.”

4. The decision in Tanmoy Nath1 was appealed against in this Court.

While rejecting the appeals, this Court in its Order dated 29.03.2017

observed as under:-

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record. We do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order.

While setting aside the selections, the High Court in para
123 of the impugned order observed:

‘123. The State on or before 31.12.2014 must
complete a fresh process of selection of teachers
in all categories. In view of the discussions held
above, we direct that the State should frame a new
Employment Policy within two months from
today and shall carry out selections in accordance
with the fresh policy as early as possible and not
later than 31.12.2014.’
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

6

While issuing notice in the present matters this Court by its
Order dated 04.08.2014 stayed the directions contained in
aforesaid para 123 of the impugned order.

Since we do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order, the directions in para 123 now required to
be suitably modified. We, therefore, direct:-

(a) New Employment Policy should be framed by the
State by 30th April, 2017 if not already framed and
advertisements for filling up the vacancies may be
issued latest by 31st May, 2017.

(b) The fresh selection process be completed on or
before 31st December, 2017 and till the fresh
process is completed, the teachers already
appointed shall continue.

(c) The candidates who participated in the selection
process pursuant to the advertisements in question,
whether selected or not, will be allowed to
participate in the fresh selection process by relaxing
their age but subject to their having necessary
qualifications.

(d) The qualifications in the case of teachers governed
by the provisions of the Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 shall be in
conformity with the relevant statutory provisions of
the said Act.

(e) The qualifications of teachers employed for Classes
IX and above shall be strictly in compliance with
the relevant provisions concerning such
appointments.

Subject to the aforesaid modifications, the view taken by
the High Court in the impugned order is affirmed and the
special leave petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

7

5. In May-June, 2017 the State Government created 12,000 non-

teaching posts in Group-C as under:-

                “(i) Academic Councillor        -      1200 Nos.
                 (ii) Students Councillor       -      3400 Nos.
                 (iii) School Library Assistant -      1500 Nos.
                 (iv) Hostel Warden             -       300 Nos.
                 (v) Programme Assistant        -      5600 Nos.

______________________________________________

Total – 12000 Nos.

______________________________________________”

6. This led to the filing of Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1706 of

2017 in this Court. After considering rival submissions, the following

Order was passed by this Court on 04.10.2017.

“This contempt petition has been filed seeking initiation of
contempt proceedings against the senior officers of the
State of Tripura for willful disobedience of the order dated
29th February, 2017. The case of the petitioner is that the
State of Tripura recruited 10323 teachers illegally. The
Tripura High Court vide judgment dated 7th May, 2014
quashed the said appointments inter alia holding:-

“It is more than apparent to us that the
appointments have been made on totally
extraneous basis without considering the future of
the poor students or the aspiration of the
unemployed youth. The whole selective process
was a cruel joke on the youth of Tripura.” … …

… … …The selection have been totally unfair.

The selection has not been made in a transparent
manner. The citizens of this country have not
been treated equally. Most of the clauses of the
policy are illegal and unconstitutional. The entire
policy is bad because it gives no guidelines and,
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

8

therefore, the entire selection will have to be,
must be and is accordingly set aside.”

The above view was affirmed by this Court vide order
dated 29th March, 2017.

To circumvent the order of this Court, vide notification
dated 19th May, 2017, the State of Tripura issued a
notification and created 12,000 posts of Student Counsellor,
School Library Assistant, Academic Counsellor, Hostel
Warden and School Assistant with a view to accommodate
the same persons whose appointments were quashed being
tainted by extraneous reasons apart from lack of
qualifications. The age requirement and qualifications have
been now tailored with a view to appoint the very same
persons whose appointments were quashed to newly
created posts and thereby defeat the order of the Court
quashing their appointment.

Notice was issued and reply has been filed stating that the
decision of the State of Tripura was bona fide and not with
a view to flout the order of this Court.

We find prima facie merit in the allegations in the contempt
petition and prayer for initiating proceedings against the
respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks
further time to make submissions.

Adjourned to 24th October, 2017. Personal appearance of
the alleged contemnors is dispensed with till further orders.
Liberty to file any further affidavit.

Pending further consideration, the State of Tripura is
restrained from filling up the posts of newly recruited
12,000 posts of Student Counsellor, School Library
Assistant, Academic Counsellor, Hostel Warden and School
Assistant.”
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

9

7. The Contempt Petition was thereafter taken up for hearing on

24.10.2017 when the following order was passed by this Court:-

“In continuation of proceedings dated 4th October, 2017,
learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention
to the additional affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 to
show that all the steps leading to notification dated 19 th
May, 2017 have been taken only after the judgement of this
Court dated 29th March, 2017, which is with a view to flout
the order of this Court. It was further submitted that the
object is to continue in service all those whose
appointments were quashed and were found to be for
extraneous reasons.

Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Chief Secretary, Education, Tripura, states that the
appointments which are impugned in the present
proceedings are proposed to be initiated only after the
completion of the selection of teachers which is likely to be
over by 31st December, 2017.”

8. The directions issued by this Court were then complied with by the

State Government and an affidavit to that effect was filed, whereafter the

Contempt Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated

02.08.2019.

The time granted in direction (b) of the Order dated 29.03.2017

passed by this Court, was extended from time to time and finally this Court

issued directions on 01.11.2018 extending the period of services of the

concerned teachers upto the completion of the Academic Session 2019-

2020.

Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

10

9. As per record, by the end of Academic Session 2019-2020, 8,882

ad-hoc teachers were working in the School Education Department and in

terms of the directions issued in Tanmoy Nath1 and by this Court, the

services of the concerned teachers stood terminated after the Academic

Session 2019-2020 was over.

10. In the meantime, some of the teachers had again approached the

High Court raising certain submissions which were noted by the High

Court in its judgment presently under appeal as under:-

“(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 …”

10.1 The basic issue which arose for consideration was set out in para

16 of the decision of High Court as under:-

“16. The core issue which arises for consideration is as to
whether the instant writ petitioner(s) can be allowed to
reopen the issues decided by this Court in Tanmay Nath
(supra), as affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated
29.03.2017 on the ground that; (a) this termination is illegal
on account of violation of principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as no notice stood issued to them, nor were they
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

11

impleaded as parties to such proceedings; (b) the services
of the petitioners stand protected by and in terms of the
directions contained in para-127 of the very judgment; (c)
whether the impugned memorandum extending the period
of services on ad-hoc basis and rejecting the representations
should be quashed or not.”

10.2 The High Court found that the pendency of the original writ

petitions was widely circulated throughout the State in the print and

electronic media; and that prior to the rendering of its decision in Tanmoy

Nath1, the High Court had directed issuance of notices to be published in

the newspapers which were also issued; and that none of the petitioners

had challenged the decision of the High Court in Tanmoy Nath1 nor did

they seek any review.

10.3 It was finally concluded:-

“29. In effect, instant petitioners are seeking review of the
judgment rendered in Tanmoy Nath (supra) which is not
permissible in law, more so on the doctrine of merger. We
hasten to add that the issues stand decided only as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty allowing the instant
petitioners to agitate the same before us.

30. State is duty bound, under the constitution, to see
proper and effective implementation of the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court.

31. In view of above discussion, the present bunch of
instant writ petitions, being an abuse of process of law and
speculative in nature, stand dismissed.”
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

12

11. The Special Leave Petitions challenging the decision of the High

Court dated 03.10.2019 came up before this Court on 07.02.2020 when the

following order was passed:-

“Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that some of
the teachers, whose appointments as a result of the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court [as
affirmed by this Court] will now stand terminated at the
end of the Academic Session 2019-2020, are otherwise
fully eligible and have the requisite qualifications to be
appointed as teachers.

Learned counsel further submitted that such candidates
may not be within the permissible age bracket and will
therefore stand deprived of any opportunity only because of
age bar.

Issue notice confined to the question whether there could
be any age relaxation insofar as the teachers already in
employment and who otherwise have all the requisite
qualifications and are otherwise competent.

Let the notice be made returnable on 16.03.2020.

At this juncture, the proforma respondents need not be
served in the matter.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

Liberty is granted to serve the learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

It is made clear that the matters are confined only to the
aforesaid question and rest of the submissions as advanced
by the learned counsel stand rejected.”

12. Thereafter, the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by this Court

recorded that the concerned teachers had ceased to be in employment after

the end of the Academic Session 2019-2020. The submissions advanced
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

13

on behalf of the State Government and by the learned Advocates appearing

for the petitioners were noted as under:-

“Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the State submitted that after the end of the Academic
Session 2019- 2020, the concerned teachers have ceased to
be in employment; that some of the teachers had
participated in the selection; and, the State had afforded
them age relaxation. He also submitted that the State
Government is contemplating to accommodate some of the
teachers in alternate employment.

Mr. Manish Goswami, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the averments to that effect have
already been made on behalf of the State Government in
Miscellaneous Application Diary No.11372 of 2020, filed
in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18993 of 2014.

We call upon the State to place an appropriate affidavit
indicating the stand of the State and what steps the State is
contemplating and the kind of benefit that it seeks to extend
to the teachers by way of alternate employment.”

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit was filed on behalf of

the State reporting the steps undertaken by the State Government. It was

submitted that in compliance of the decision of this Court dated

29.03.2017, advertisements through Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Tripura

were issued on 27.05.2017 inviting applications for filling up vacancies of

teachers; and that large number of candidates, including those who had

earlier participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisements

dated 29.10.2002, 05.04.2006 and 23.09.2009, had taken part in the

process; and that those candidates were given age relaxation and some of
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

14

them were selected by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board. The necessary

averments in said affidavit were:-

“That it is crystal clear that the Respondent-State
Government has been giving age relaxation to ad-hoch
teachers in the past also complying with the directions of
this Hon’ble Court in the judgement dated 29.03.2017. It is
further submitted that the Respondent-State has decided
that these candidates who had been working as ad-hoc
teachers and have been removed from their such
engagements, on their getting selected in the fresh selection
in terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court and of
this Hon’ble Court, is extending full age relaxation to them
irrespective of the number of years required and for
recruitments to be held till 31 st March, 2023 to compete for
the post of teachers. It is also emphasized that only such
ad-hoc teachers who fulfil the requisite qualifications and
are otherwise eligible for employment, are being
considered for such age relaxation.”

The affidavit also annexed a copy of Miscellaneous Application

Diary No.11372 of 2020 which had indicated that there were about 10,618

vacant posts in Group-C and Group-D in different Departments and which

had prayed:-

“A) Permit the State Government to consider and appoint
these discharged ad-hoc teachers, to vacant sanctioned
Group-C/Group-D posts in the services of the State of
Tripura on fulfilment of the eligibility conditions and with
age relaxation wherever it is required:

B) Permit age relaxation in respect of such appointments as
prayed hereinabove, of the ad-hoc teachers against
sanctioned vacant non-technical Group-C and Group-D
posts in different State Government Department.”
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

15

14. In appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1324

of 2020, an application was filed seeking permission to file additional

documents. In terms of the document at Annexure A-2 the total vacant

posts of teachers in the State were 20,165. The documents appended to

the application were relied upon to submit that from 16.09.2016 till

29.05.2020, only 4,300 teachers were appointed in various categories in

the State. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

concerned appellants submitted that considering the vacant posts of

teachers in the State, the teachers whose services were disengaged and

terminated after the completion of Academic Session 2019-2020 be

suitably re-employed. It was further submitted that even if some such

candidates were selected as teachers after allowing them age relaxation or

even if some of the candidates were given alternate employment, some

glaring issues would still arise as (a) their past service would not be

counted for any purpose; (b) they would start at the bottom in the

concerned service or employment; and (c) it would be a case of

degradation if the teachers were offered employment in Group-C and

Group-D.

15. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for some

other appellants, also submitted that the concerned candidates be

accommodated considering the vacancy situation, while Mr. Jaideep

Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in another set of matters
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

16

submitted that, it would certainly be a case of degradation if the former

teachers were given appointments in Group-C and Group-D. On the other

hand, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for some

of the appellants submitted that his clients were willing to accept the

alternate employment provided they were given chance to acquire the

requisite qualification.

16. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the

State submitted that the selection and appointments were set aside by the

High Court vide its decision in Tanmoy Nath1 as being arbitrary and

illegal; and that it was found by the High Court that the selection was

based purely on oral interview and suffered from nepotism and

favouritism. He submitted that if the appointments themselves were

illegal and the selection was set aside being arbitrary and invalid, the past

service of such teachers could not be recognised in any manner and that

the State Government had afforded adequate opportunity to the concerned

candidates by giving age relaxation and apart therefrom no other benefit

could be extended to such candidates. Responding to the annexures

appended to the application filed in the appeal arising out of Special

Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.1324 of 2020, it was submitted that the figure

of 20,165, being alleged vacant posts of teachers in the State, was not

correct. Such figure was arrived at after taking into account the attempt
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

17

on part of the State to create about 12,000 posts in Group-C in non-

teaching category in the year 2017, which was subject matter of the action

in the Contempt Petition before this Court in its Order dated 04.10.2017

and subsequent Orders.

17. The questions concerning legality and validity of the entire

selection process and the appointments of about 10,323 teachers were

gone into in detail in Tanmoy Nath1. The findings rendered by the High

Court and its conclusions were accepted by this Court while dismissing

the appeals arising therefrom. Though the services of the concerned

teachers were initially protected only upto 31.12.2017, accepting the plea

made on behalf of the State, the concerned date was extended from time

to time. It is a matter of record that the services of such candidates now

stand terminated. In terms of the directions issued in Tanmoy Nath1 and

appeal arising therefrom, the State is obliged to conduct selection process

in which the concerned candidates will be entitled to participate with age

relaxation. The age relaxation has now been afforded by the State in all

selections till 31.03.2023, which benefit is quite adequate and proper.

18. In our view, considering the fact that the very selection and

appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, no other advantage can

be conferred upon the concerned candidates. It must be noted that the

attempt on part of the State in offering certain alternate employment is not
Civil Appeal Nos. 2868 of 2020 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1298 of 2020 etc. etc.
Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.

18

to degrade the teachers but some solace is being offered even in cases

where the candidates do not succeed in the selections to the posts of

teachers. The candidates, if they are otherwise competent and eligible,

will certainly have every opportunity till 31.03.2023 to get selected for the

posts of teachers in the State and by way of additional benefit those who

are unsuccessful in such attempts may retain the alternate employment. In

our view, it does not amount to any degradation.

19. Though the notice was confined to the question of age relaxation

as was made clear in the Order dated 07.02.2020, we have considered

submissions which were not strictly confined to said question. We,

however, do not find any substance in the contentions, which are therefore

rejected.

20. Consequently, these appeals and M.A. (D) No. 11372 of 2020 are

dismissed without any order as to costs.

……………………J.

(Uday Umesh Lalit)

……………………J.

(Vineet Saran)

New Delhi,
August 05, 2020.



Source link