10323

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
1. WP(C) No.1040/2019
Sri Bijoy Krishna Saha & others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Tripura & others

---- Respondent(s).
Connected with
2. WP(C) No.743/2019
Sri Manas Bhowmik

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Tripura & Another

---- Respondent(s).
3. WP(C) No.757/2019
Sri Balaram Debnath

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
4. WP(C) No.739/2019
Sri Asit Pal

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Connected with
5. WP(C) No.758/2019
Sri Sanjib Reang

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 38
6. WP(C) No.761/2019
Sri Mithun Dey

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
7. WP(C) No.762/2019
Smt. Sankari Chakraborty

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
8. WP(C) No.763/2019
Sri Shib Narayan Ghosh

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
9. WP(C) No.764/2019
Sri Sankar Debnath

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
10. WP(C) No.765/2019
Sri Rakhal Deb

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
11. WP(C) No.766/2019
Sri Rafiulla Bhuiya

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 3 of 38
12. WP(C) No.741/2019
Sri Jayanta Sarkar

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Connected with
13. WP(C) No.755/2019
Smt. Leena Deb

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
14. WP(C) No.756/2019
Sri Chandan Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
15. WP(C) No.742/2019
Sri Sanjib Ahir

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Connected with
16. WP(C) No.767/2019
Sri Sanjit Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 4 of 38
17. WP(C) No.768/2019
Sri Bimal Kanti Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
18. WP(C) No.769/2019
Sri Tejnarayan Kairi

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
19. WP(C) No.770/2019
Sri Tarun Kanti Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
20. WP(C) No.771/2019
Sri Jinesh Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
21. WP(C) No.772/2019
Sri Sudhangshu Malakar

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
22. WP(C) No.773/2019
Sri Ranjit Shil

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 5 of 38
23. WP(C) No.774/2019

Smt. Archita Deb
---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
24. WP(C) No.775/2019
Sri Mintu Namasudra

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
25. WP(C) No.776/2019
Sri Ramraj Ahir

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
26. WP(C) No.777/2019
Smt. Brajeswari Sinha

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
27. WP(C) No.778/2019
Sri Ranjit Ch. Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
28. WP(C) No.779/2019
Smt. Sibani Bhattacharjee

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 6 of 38
29. WP(C) No.780/2019
Smt. Renuka Sinha

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
30. WP(C) No.782/2019
Sri Pranesh Datta

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
31. WP(C) No.783/2019
Sri Dilip Ghosh

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
32. WP(C) No.784/2019
Sri Sukumar Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
33. WP(C) No.785/2019
Sri Swapan Kumar Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
34. WP(C) No.786/2019
Sri Sailesh Chandra Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 7 of 38
35. WP(C) No.787/2019
Sri Haripada Debnath

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
36. WP(C) No.788/2019
Sri Prasanta Pal

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
37. WP(C) No.789/2019
Sri Babul Rabi Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
38. WP(C) No.790/2019
Smt. Ruma Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
39. WP(C) No.791/2019
Balai Chand Sarkar

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
40. WP(C) No.792/2019
Smt. Nita Dbbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 8 of 38
41. WP(C) No.793/2019
Sri Gopal Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
42. WP(C) No.794/2019
Sri Raimohan Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
43. WP(C) No.795/2019
Sri Narayan Deb

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
44. WP(C) No.796/2019
Sri Bidyut Lodh

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
45. WP(C) No.797/2019
Sri Bibhu Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
46. WP(C) No.798/2019
Sri Subhas Chandra Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 9 of 38
47. WP(C) No.799/2019
Sri Tapan Kumar Barman

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
48. WP(C) No.800/2019
Sri Baburam Satnami

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
49. WP(C) No.801/2019
Sri Nikhil Sinha

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
50. WP(C) No.802/2019
Sri Debopam Roy

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
51. WP(C) No.803/2019
Sri Supanta Bhattacharjee

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
52. WP(C) No.804/2019
Sri Jiban Kanti Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 10 of 38
53. WP(C) No.806/2019
Sri Gopal Chandra De

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
54. WP(C) No.807/2019
Sri Bikas Pal

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
55. WP(C) No.808/2019
Sri Pradip Kumar Debnath

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
56. WP(C) No.809/2019
Sri Sujoy Das Purkyastha

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
57. WP(C) No.810/2019
Smt. Samita Acharjee

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
58. WP(C) No.811/2019
Sri Ranen Ghosh

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 11 of 38
59. WP(C) No.812/2019
Sri Digendra Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
60. WP(C) No.813/2019
Sri Partha Ghosh

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
61. WP(C) No.814/2019
Smt. Rejina Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
62. WP(C) No.815/2019
Sri Gopal Majumder

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
63. WP(C) No.816/2019
Sri Kanai Malakar

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
64. WP(C) No.837/2019
Smt. Rina Sinha

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 12 of 38
65. WP(C) No.838/2019
Sri Niren Sinha

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
66. WP(C) No.839/2019
Sri Ratan Chandra Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
67. WP(C) No.840/2019
Sri Himadri Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
68. WP(C) No.841/2019
Sri Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
69. WP(C) No.842/2019
Sri Asis Banik

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
70. WP(C) No.843/2019
Sri Ashok Chakraborty

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 13 of 38
71. WP(C) No.844/2019
Smt. Boby Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
72. WP(C) No.845/2019
Sri Kranti Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
73. WP(C) No.846/2019
Smt. Suchitra Debnath

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
74. WP(C) No.848/2019
Sri Bijoy Debbarma

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
75. WP(C) No.852/2019
Sri Biplab Datta

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
76. WP(C) No.853/2019
Smt. Chandana Das

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 14 of 38
77. WP(C) No.1200/2019
Shri Ashish Dhar & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
78. WP(C) No.1202/2019
Sri Uttam Kumar Das & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
79. WP(C) No.1203/2019
Sri Dulal Chandra Das & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
80. WP(C) No.1205/2019
Sri Arabinda Debbarma & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
81. WP(C) No.1214/2019
Sri Rajesh Roy & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
82. WP(C) No.1217/2019
Sri Sukhendu Debnath & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
Page - 15 of 38
83. WP(C) No.1219/2019
Sri Partha Debnath & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
84. WP(C) No.1221/2019
Smt. Rupa Bhowmik Majumder & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
85. WP(C) No.1222/2019
Sri Sanjit Bhattacharjee & Others

---- Petitioner(s).
Versus

---- Respondent(s).
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajiv Sen,

Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Avijit Roy, Advocate,
Mr. Bijan Chakraborty,
Advocate,
Mr.Santanu Chakraborty,
Advocate,
Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma,
Advocate,
Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate,
Mr. B.N. Majumder, Advocate,
Mr. P. Saha, Advocate,
Mr. S. Pandit, Advocate,
Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kanti Bhowmik,

Advocate General,
Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
Page - 16 of 38
Date of hearing : 01.10.2019.
Date of pronouncement : 03.10.2019.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Sanjay Karol, C.J.)
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 & others vs. The State of Tripura &
others, WP(C) No739 of 2019, titled as Sri Asit Pal vs. The State
of Tripura & another, and WP(C) No.1200 of 2019, titled as Sri
Ashish Dhar & others vs. The State of Tripura & 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

Page - 17 of 38
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 & others vs. The State of Tripura &
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 & 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

Page - 18 of 38
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.
4. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in WP(C) No.1200 of 2019 and other connected
matters, has in addition, added that; (a) Instant petitioner’s
representations made pursuant to order passed in writ petitions
filed in the year 2018/2019, stands summarily rejected vide order
dated 04.04.2019 or similar orders. The order is most cryptic and
unreasoned, apart from it not dealing with the issued raised
therein; (b) In service matters, principle of Order I Rule 8 of Code
of Civil Procedure does not apply and as such, judgment rendered
by this Court in Tanmay Nath (supra) cannot be said to be
binding upon the instant petitioners.
In support, learned counsel seeks reliance upon (i)
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board
of Revenue, Bihar & another, AIR 1963 SC 786; (4 Judge
Bench), (ii) A.M.S. Sushanth & others vs. M. Sujatha &
others, (2000) 10 SCC 197; (2 Judge Bench), (iii) All India SC
& ST Employees’ Association & another vs. A. Arthur Jeen &
others, (2001) 6 SCC 380; (2 Judge Bench), (iv) K.H. Siraj vs.
High Court of Kerala & others, (2006) 6 SCC 395; (2 Judge

Page - 19 of 38
Bench), (v) KM. Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P. Public Service
Commission & others, (2006) 12 SCC 724; (2 Judge Bench),
(vi) Sadananda Halo & others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh &
others, (2008) 4 SCC 619; (2 Judge Bench), (vii) Suresh vs.
Yeotmal District Central Cooperative Bank Limited &
another, (2008) 12 SCC 558; (2 Judge Bench), (viii) Tridip
Kumar Dingal & others vs. State of West Bengal & others,
(2009) 1 SCC 768; (2 Judge Bench), (ix) Poonam vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others, (2016) 2 SCC 779; (2 Judge Bench),
(x) Ranjan Kumar & others vs. State of Bihar & others,
(2014) 16 SCC 187; (2 Judge Bench), (xi) Vijay Kumar Kaul &
others vs. Union of India & others, (2012) 7 SCC 610; (2
Judge Bench), (xii) Tanmoy Nath & others vs. State of
Tripura & others, (2014) 2 TLR 731; (2 Judge Bench), (xiii)
Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited vs. K.P. Sharma & others,
(2014) 8 SCC 866. (2 Judge Bench).
A brief background to the filing of the instant petitions:
5. Selection and appointment of approximately 10,323
teachers made by the Government of Tripura, pursuant to
advertisements issued in the year 2002, 2006 and 2009, being
contrary to the provisions of the NCTE Act and the policies
including dated 30.08.2003, the basis for such appointments/
selection being arbitrary and illegal was quashed by this Court
vide judgment reported in Tanmoy Nath (supra). While doing so,
the Court found the selection based purely on an oral interview, to
be absolutely irrational and illogical apart from being arbitrary and

Page - 20 of 38
exercise of discretion to be full of nepotism and favourism. It
further observed that:
“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 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page - 21 of 38
6. In allowing the prayers, the Court observed thus:
“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.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. We notice that certain directions were issued to the
State for improvising and making the system functional. The
relevant portions being para-125, 126, 127 & 128, are reproduced
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
Page - 22 of 38
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.
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is not in dispute that the said decision [Tanmoy
Nath (supra)] was assailed by several parties including the State
of Tripura and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the
petitions vide order dated 29.03.2017, only modified the direction
contained in para-123 (reproduced supra). The said order passed
in the SLP reads 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
Page - 23 of 38
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.”
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.”

(emphasis supplied)
Page - 24 of 38
9. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said decision,
services of the instant petitioners were further allowed to be
continued by the Apex Court for a period of 6(six) months, but “on
ad-hoc basis” and on such terms as the State Government may
impose which is evident from order dated 14.12.2017 passed by
the Apex Court in an application filed by some of the selected
candidates. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
“Time granted by this Court in terms of order dated

24th October, 2017 is extended till 30th June, 2018, subject
to condition that the judgment dated 29th March, 2017 will
be strictly complied with. 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.
No further order in these applications (IA

No.125638/2017, MA 1666/2017, MA 1760/2017, IA
No.136810/2017, MA 1763/2017).
The same are disposed of.”

(emphasis supplied)
10. The impugned memorandum dated 23.12.2017
(Annexure-6 at page-311) stands issued pursuant to such
directions, whereby the period of engagement is extended on ad-
hoc basis for 6(six) months.
11. Subsequently, vide yet another order dated
01.11.2018, the Apex Court issued certain directions extending

Page - 25 of 38
the period of services up to completion of the academic session
2019-2020, which we reproduce as under:
“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. The above direction has been
issued in the peculiar facts of the case and the
circumstances which have confronted the State of Tripura
and above all, the need to functioning of teaching activities
in schools in the State of Tripura remains unaffected.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. It is seen that pursuant thereto, some of the instant
writ petitioners approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the
following common 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
Page - 26 of 38
interruption by the said memorandum and to pay his

arrears salary and to count his service accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. All of such petitions [one out of such batch being
WP(C) No.1245/2018 & other connected matters] were withdrawn
reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the State by way
of representation which was so made on 18.01.2019 through the
President of Tripura Sarkari Karmachari Mahasangha and disposed
of vide memorandum dated 04.04.2019 by observing as under:
“Firstly, the claim made to the effect that they were

not parties is not correct inasmuch as Graduate Teachers
appointed in early 2010 and post Graduate Teachers
appointed in August, 2010 on the basis of advertisement
published in the year, 2002, 2006 and 2009 were made
parties in the concerned writ petition either directly is
respondents or under provision of order-I Rule 8 CPC by
publication in newspapers under the order of the Hon’ble
High Court of Tripura. This issue of alleged impleadment
was raised in the Hon’ble Apex Court without any success
and consequently the petitioners have no right to raise
these issues now.
So far as the other claim of the petitioners to the

effect that their appointment was not challenged is not also
correct inasmuch as the writ petitioners relating to
judgment and order dated 07-05-2014 had not only
challenged the revised Employment Policy of 2003 but also
challenged appointment of all teachers appointed in 3 spells
namely Graduate teachers in early 2010, Post Graduate in
August, 2010 and Under Graduate in 2013/2014 totaling to
more or less 10323 the petitioners all on the basis of
advertisement issued in the year 2002, 2006 and 2009 on
the basis of same Revised Employment Policy of 2003.
Page - 27 of 38
There is no scope on the part of the petitioners to get

themselves excluded from the operation of the said
judgment dated 07-05-2014 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Tripura. The matter now sought to be raised in the
representation were already settled by the aforesaid
judgment dated 07-05-2014 and finally by the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 29-03-2017 and in view
of this position, the present claims of the petitioner raised in
the representations appear to be vexatious and wholly
unwanted in law and facts. The request for cancelling
paragraph-3 of the memorandum dated 23-12-2017 issued
by the undersigned and modification of paragraph-4 thereof
is totally uncalled for and such an exercise would in fact be
violation of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble
High Court and affirm by the Supreme Court of India.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. At this juncture, it be observed that some of the other
instant writ petitioners directly approached the Apex Court and
the Court disposed of the matter on 02.08.2019 by issuing the
following directions:
“CONMT. PET.(C) No.1706/2017 in SLP(C) Nos.18993-19049/2014
On 01.11.2018, this Court permitted State of Tripura

to avail services of terminated teachers until the end of the
Academic Session 2019-2020. The observations in that
behalf were as under:
“… 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. The above direction has been issued in the
peculiar facts of the case and the circumstances which
have confronted the State of Tripura and above all,
Page - 28 of 38
the need to functioning of teaching activities in

schools in the State of Tripura remains unaffected. …”
The affidavit reporting compliance has since then

been filed on 24.04.2019 indicating various steps taken and
endeavours made by the State.
In view of the affidavit, nothing further need be done

in the matter. This Contempt Petition is closed.
MA No.1726/2018 in SLP(C) Nos.18993-19049/2014 (XIV)
Since the Contempt Petition is being closed, Mr.

Jaideep Gupta, learned senior Advocate in support of IA
No.103203/2019 in MA No.1726/2018 submitted that he be
given liberty to withdraw this application to approach the
High Court.
The liberty is granted. The application if preferred,

may be considered by the High Court purely in accordance
with law.
We have not and shall not be taken to have expressed

any opinion on the merits or demerits of the contentions.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the aforesaid factual narration, we proceed to decide
the present petitions.
Findings:
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

Page - 29 of 38
them, nor were they 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.
17. In WP(C) No.51 of 2014, titled as Tanmoy Nath
(supra), the Court vide order dated 06.02.2014 had directed
issuance of a public notice since large number of parties (4000)
were likely to be affected. Pursuant thereto, notices dated
21.02.2014 were issued in two newspapers namely, Dainik
Sambad and Daily Desher Katha respectively.
During the pendency of the hearing, we had called for
the record of WP(C) No.208 of 2010, titled as Shri Sudhan
Majumder & others vs. The State of Tripura & others, also
disposed of with Tanmoy Nath (supra), and noticed that public
notice dated 08.12.2010 was issued in the daily newspaper
namely “Syandan Patrika” informing the general public of the
pendency of the petitions and the Court dealing with the matters
with regard to the appointment of graduate teachers. Also there is
an order dated 24.11.2010 in C.M. Appl. No.223/2010 in c/w
WP(C) No.208 of 2010 to such an effect.
18. As such, at this stage, instant writ petitioners cannot
be allowed to reopen the entire issue, purely on the ground of
their non-impleadment as parties or non-issuance of notice to

Page - 30 of 38
them. Who are the petitioners? Are they illiterate rustic villagers,
hailing from the most deprived strata of the society having no
access to justice, also not knowing its procedures? Most certainly
not. They are educated Government employees posted at several
places within the State. Can it be said that they were not aware of
the proceedings laying challenge to the appointments made with
regard to more than 10,000 posts of different categories of
teachers appointed by the Government, pursuant to the
advertisement issued in the year 2002, 2006 and 2009? The
answer obviously lies in the negative and the reason is two-fold.
The pendency of the original writ petitions was widely circulated,
as we are informed, throughout the State, both in the print and
electronic media. So also was its outcome made known. It sent
ripples throughout the State. Not only that, prior to rendering of
the judgment in Tanmay Nath (supra), this Court had directed
issuance of notice to be published in the newspaper, which was
also done. To contend that such directions or notice were confined
only with respect to certain category of teachers and as such,
cannot be construed to be a notice qua other categories is not
acceptable. Teachers in Tripura are a close-knit fraternity. They
also have a union who has been pursuing the matter at different
levels. It is true that in a service matter, principles laid down
under Order I Rule 8 of CPC may not apply, but then this Court
was dealing with a case where as it stood observed, that the
action of the Government was “a cruel joke on the people of
Tripura”. The entire selection process was held to be absolutely
arbitrary, capricious and whimsical. It smacked of nothing less

Page - 31 of 38
than nepotism and favourism. Prudently, the writ Court thought it
fit to issue a general notice and not implead all of the 10,323
selected candidates as party respondents, some of whom, in any
case, were before this Court. In a representative capacity, the
petitions were considered, argued and decided.
19. Significantly, none of the instant petitioners laid any
challenge to the judgment rendered by this Court in Tanmay
Nath (supra). Neither did they seek review, nor did they file any
appeal. Why so? remains a shrouded secret. With the dismissal of
the Special Leave Petition on 29.03.2017, and their appointment
conclusively found to be illegal, they ought to have returned
home, but for the extensions granted by the Apex Court vide
orders dated 14.12.2017 and 01.11.2018 (reproduced supra)
[paras-9 & 10]. Even at that point in time, they did not express
their concern or raise any protest of violation of principles of
natural justice; the issue of their non-impleadment or of the order
passed behind their back. It is not that they were sitting in a
penance or meditating in the Himalayas, totally cut off from the
worldly affairs. Obviously they were waiting in the wings and only
when they fell out favour of a lady fortune, inasmuch as time
extended by the Apex Court is expiring, and otherwise not having
qualified, they took steps, speculative in nature, of having the
entire issue reopened by challenging the judgment of this Court in
Tanmay Nath (supra). We find their such act and conduct to be
absolutely despicable. By raising one false plea after the other,
somehow they are just trying to cling to the post, to which they
Page - 32 of 38
were illegally appointed and thereby scuttle the due process of
fresh selection and appointment wrongfully depriving the eligible
candidates.
20. Contention that in the absence of the instant
petitioners impleaded as parties in the petitions subject matter of
Tanmoy Nath (supra), this Court should direct continuance of
their appointment, more so, in the light of ratio laid down in Udit
Narain Singh Malpaharia (supra), A.M.S. Sushanth (supra), A.
Arthur Jeen (supra), K.H. Siraj (supra), Rashmi Mishra
(supra), Sadananda Halo (supra), Suresh (supra), Tridip
Kumar Dingal (supra), Poonam (supra), Ranjan Kumar
(supra), Vijay Kumar Kaul (supra), and Jal Mahal Resorts
(supra), is absolutely fallacious. At this point in time, it is not open
for the respondents to take such a plea, more so when everyone
was made aware of the proceedings pending before this Court, by
way of public notice. In the cited decisions, what weighed was
interest of an individual and not general public interest, in
formulating a policy which was held to be illegal so also
appointments made thereunder.
21. We may only remind the petitioners of what stood
observed by the Apex Court in Dwarka Nath Sharma vs. Union
of India & others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 225 (2 Judge Bench),
though in the context of preparation of a seniority list, but
relevant herein. The relevant portion reads as under:
“9. Strictly speaking, Janardhana's decision may

not have the effect of res Judicata for the present litigation,
Page - 33 of 38
but we do not think in a dispute of the present dimension

where hundreds of employees are concerned, it would be
proper for the employees to litigate over the same issues
from time to time. If it would be open to members of the
service from time to time to raise disputes of the same
nature and introduce uncertainty into the service, that
would affect the efficiency of the service and would be
against public interest. That also would call into jeopardy
the guarantees of public service and expose the officers into
an atmosphere of insecurity. A seniority list of a cadre
should not be made the subject matter of debate too often.
We have, therefore, to consider the claim of the appellant
keeping these aspects in view and referring to the
conclusions reached in Janardhana's case.”
22. In fact, we find their stand to be self-contradictory. On
one hand, they lay challenge to the judgment quashing their
appointments, whereas on the other hand they seek protection
thereunder by relying upon para-127 (reproduced supra).
23. Even on the second point, we find the plea to be
absolutely fallacious, if not dishonest. Petitioner’s contention that
the judgment was to apply prospectively and not affect the
appointments already made is absolutely misplaced and
misconceived. In para-121 reproduced supra, this Court had
specifically set aside the entire selection process and
appointments made pursuant to the policy framed by the State.
Only to protect and safeguard the interest of the children, so as
not to adversely affect their studies, the selected candidates were
allowed to function till the end of the academic session, i.e.
31.12.2014.
Page - 34 of 38
24. Para-127 of the said judgment cannot be read in
isolation. It has to be read contextually in the backdrop of the
entire judgment. It is seen that from para-123 up to para-126,
the Court issued certain directions with regard to the framing of
new employment policy. If the State were not to comply with such
directions, the Court itself laid down the criteria for initiating the
selection process for appointment of teachers in various
categories. The manner and the basis on which reservation was to
be made were also discussed. The Court was conscious of the fact
that policy was not confined only to the post of different category
of teachers. It was a broad based policy, covering all categories of
employees. Since challenge in the original writ petitions was
confined only to the teachers (of all categories), it is in this
backdrop, the Court refrained from passing any order quashing
appointments made with respect to other category(s) of posts and
restricted the relief only to the teachers of all categories. Since
new employment policy was to be framed by the State, the Court
protected “the said appointment”, unless they were subjected to
challenge before the Court on the ground that their employment
being illegal. This is how we read para-127 of the judgment. It is
not that appointment of teachers belonging to all categories, i.e.
undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate stood protected by the
Court, for acceptance of such a contention would render the
judgment to be nugatory, apart from making it appear inherently
contradictory. Para-127 has to be read in the light of para-121
and 122 (reproduced supra) of the judgment.

Page - 35 of 38
25. The judgment cannot be read out of context. One
word, i.e. “prospective” cannot be read in isolation in interpreting
and understanding the ratio of the judgment. The entire factual
matrix is necessarily required to be kept in mind. This position is
well settled. Every judgment is covered and qualified by its
particular facts.
26. The issue as to whether the judgment is to apply
prospectively or retrospectively came up for consideration before
the Apex Court in Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited
& another vs. Union of India & others, (2010) 5 SCC 388 (2
Judge Bench) and the Court observed as under:
“34. It is pertinent to note that while interpreting the

judgment, public interest should be taken into
consideration. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad &
Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727, this Court
considered the factors which are to be taken into
consideration while giving prospective operation to a
judgment. When judicial discretion has been exercised to
establish a new norm, the question emerges whether it
would be applied retrospectively to the past transactions or
prospectively to the transactions in future only. This process
is limited not only to common law traditions, but exists in all
jurisdictions. It is, therefore, for the Court to decide, on a
balance of all relevant considerations, whether a decision
which unsettles the previous position of law should be
applied retrospectively or not. The Court would look into the
justifiable reliance on the previous position by the
Administration; ability to effectuate the new rule adopted in
the overruling case without doing injustice, whether its
operation is likely to burden the administration of justice
substantially or would retard the purpose. All these factors
are to be taken into account while determining whether a
judgment is prospective or otherwise. The Court would
Page - 36 of 38
adopt either the retroactive or non-retroactive effect of a

decision after evaluating the merits and demerits of a
particular case by looking to the prior history of the rule in
question, its purpose and effect and whether retroactive
operation will accelerate or retard the object of the
judgment. The purpose of the old rule, the mischief sought
to be prevented by the judgment and the public interest are
equally germane and should be taken into account in
deciding whether the judgment has prospective or
retrospective operation. It is well known that the courts do
make the law to prevent administrative chaos and to meet
ends of justice. Taking into consideration all these factors,
this Court refuses to interpret the 1996 judgment in a
manner which would give it a retrospective effect. It is clear
from the tenor of judgment and from other background
circumstances, more importantly in view of decisions of
NCZMA which is a statutory body that Three Judge Bench
decision in 1996 case intended to give it prospective effect.
35. The Court would adopt either the retroactive or

non-retroactive effect of a decision after evaluating the
merits and demerits of a particular case by looking to the
prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect
and whether retroactive operation will accelerate or retard
the object of the judgment. The purpose of the old rule, the
mischief sought to be prevented by the judgment and the
public interest are equally germane and should be taken
into account in deciding whether the judgment has
prospective or retrospective operation. It is well known that
the courts do make the law to prevent administrative chaos
and to meet ends of justice. Taking into consideration all
these factors, this Court refuses to interpret the 1996
judgment in a manner which would give it a retrospective
effect. It is clear from the tenor of judgment and from other
background circumstances, more importantly in view of
decisions of NCZMA which is a statutory body that Three
Judge Bench decision in 1996 case intended to give
it prospective effect.”
Page - 37 of 38
27. The Apex Court while passing the orders dated
14.12.2017, 01.11.2018 and 02.08.2019 (reproduced supra) did
not allow the petitioners or anyone of the affected employees to
raise pleas and contentions sought to be done here and at this
point in time.
28. We may also observe that when some of the petitioners
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1245/2018 & other
connected matters, this Court allowed the petitions to be
withdrawn reserving liberty to represent to the Government. It
may be that the Government has not dealt with every aspect of
the matter, but then they were not even required to do so, for the
issue stood conclusively decided by the Apex Court and it is not
the law that every representation is to be considered and decided
point wise, dealing with all of the contentions raised, for the duty
to decide the representation emanates not from any statute. As
such, memorandum dated 04.04.2019 need not be quashed.
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.

Page - 38 of 38
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.
We refrain from imposing costs.
32. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (SANJAY KAROL), CJ
Pulak/Anjan

10323

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10323

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10323

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

Sri Bijoy Krishna Saha & others

The State of Tripura & others

Sri Manas Bhowmik

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Balaram Debnath

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Asit Pal

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Sanjib Reang

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Mithun Dey

The State of Tripura & Another

Smt. Sankari Chakraborty

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Shib Narayan Ghosh

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Sankar Debnath

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Rakhal Deb

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Rafiulla Bhuiya

The State of Tripura & Another

12. WP(C) No.741/2019

Sri Jayanta Sarkar

The State of Tripura & Another

13. WP(C) No.755/2019

Smt. Leena Deb

The State of Tripura & Another

14. WP(C) No.756/2019

Sri Chandan Das

The State of Tripura & Another

15. WP(C) No.742/2019

Sri Sanjib Ahir

The State of Tripura & Another

16. WP(C) No.767/2019

Sri Sanjit Das

The State of Tripura & Another

17. WP(C) No.768/2019

Sri Bimal Kanti Das

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Tejnarayan Kairi

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Tarun Kanti Debbarma

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Jinesh Das

The State of Tripura & Another

21. WP(C) No.772/2019

Sri Sudhangshu Malakar

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Ranjit Shil

The State of Tripura & Another

23. WP(C) No.774/2019

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Mintu Namasudra

The State of Tripura & Another

Sri Ramraj Ahir

The State of Tripura & Another

Smt. Brajeswari Sinha