Tripura High Court
Sri Chitta Ranjan Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 7 October, 2020
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page - 1 of 12
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.385/2020
Sri Chitta Ranjan Sarkar, S/o Sri Bamacharan Sarkar,
resident of Village - North Nalicherra, P.O. Nalicherra,
P.S & Sub-Division - Ambassa, District - Dhalai Tripura,
Pin - 799 204.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura,
having his office at Secretariat Building, P.O - Kunjaban,
P.S - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura,
Pin - 799 006.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura,
having his office at Secretariat Building, P.O - Kunjaban,
P.S - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura,
Pin - 799 006.
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Finance Department, Government of Tripura,
having his office at Secretariat Building, P.O - Kunjaban,
P.S - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura,
Pin - 799 006.
4. The Director of School Education, Education Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at Shiksha Bhawan,
Office lane, P.O - Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District - West
Tripura.
Page - 2 of 12
5. The Director of Elementary Education, Education Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at Shiksha Bhawan,
Office Lane, P.O - Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District -
West Tripura.
............... Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Date of hearing : 1st October, 2020.
Date of Judgment : 7th October, 2020.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
_J_U_D_G_M_E_N_T_
The petitioner has two grievances. His first grievance is that after his fresh selection and appointment as Under Graduate Teacher under order dated 8th January 2020, he is placed in fixed salary structure though previously he was already absorbed in regular scales as a Graduate Teacher. His other grievance is that in the recruitment process which the State of Tripura is likely to undertake shortly for Government Teachers, he would not be granted age relaxation for the post of Graduate Teacher. [2] These prayers of the petitioner may seem short, has a long history which may be noted as shortly as possible :
Page - 3 of 12 Petitioner was selected and appointed as a Graduate Teacher by the Government of Tripura under an order dated 10th May, 2010. The selection processes undertaken for various categories of teachers by the Government during the said period came under High Court's scrutiny. In an intra-Court appeal these issues were examined by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath and others vs. State of Tripura and others reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731. The Division Bench found various irregularities in the selection. All such appointments were set aside. The Government was directed to frame fresh guidelines for selection. In the interest of students, it was provided that those teachers who were already engaged would continue to function till 31st December, 2014 and by which time it was expected that the State Government would complete the fresh selection process of teachers in all categories. In paragraph 125 of the said judgment it was 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."
Page - 4 of 12 [3] The decision of the High Court in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) was challenged by the Government before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted interim relief initially and protected the teachers against immediate termination. However, this Government appeal was disposed of by an order dated 29th March 2017, the judgment of the Division Bench was upheld. Only modification made was in the timelines provided by the Division Bench for continuation of the engagement of the teachers and completion of fresh selection process which were extended. These were thereafter further extended from time to time. Final extension was granted by the Supreme Court up to 31st March, 2020 under an order dated 1st November, 2018.
[4] As noted, the petitioner was previously selected and appointed to the post of Graduate Teacher which selection stood cancelled by virtue of the judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra). After the decision of the Supreme Court confirming the High Court judgment in case of Tanmoy Nath the petitioner also made attempt for fresh selection as a teacher. However, in the meantime, the requirement of a Graduate Teacher passing Teachers Eligibility Test(TET) was introduced. When the vacancies were notified by the State Government, the petitioner had passed Paper-I of TET in December, 2018. However, he did not clear Paper-II of TET. He Page - 5 of 12 again appeared and cleared TET Paper-II also for which mark sheet was issued on 6th September, 2019. In the meantime, since the Government had undertaken the selection process for the teachers, the petitioner applied for the post of Under Graduate Teacher and could not seek appointment as a Graduate Teacher. He was selected and appointed as an Under Graduate Teacher. He joined the said post. He tendered a technical resignation from the post of Graduate Teacher on which he was continuing under the Court orders. Such resignation was accepted by the Government on 10th March, 2020. In this context, his first grievance arises. He points out that under the appointment order dated 8th January, 2020 he is placed in a fixed salary of Rs.16,050/-. This would wipe out his entire past service for the purpose of pay protection and all other benefits. He contends that this is contrary to the decision of this Court in case of Smt. Sangita Reang and others Vrs. The State of Tripura and others reported in (2020) 1 TLR 80.
[5] His second grievance relates to the age relaxation for the future recruitments which may be undertaken by the State Government. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the State Government has given an undertaking before the Supreme Court that all the teachers similarly situated as the petitioner would be granted unlimited Page - 6 of 12 age relaxation for all recruitments for the post of teachers till the year 2023. He pointed out that the stand of the Government in the present case is contrary to the said undertaking given by the Government before the Supreme Court.
[6] On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharjee submitted that the policy of the Government is to grant age relaxation to those teachers who have been terminated by virtue of the decision of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) and are, therefore, rendered jobless. Case of the petitioner is different. He is already recruited on regular basis, of course on the post of Under Graduate Teacher. However, he cannot equate himself with other teachers whose services have been terminated.
[7] The petitioner's first grievance is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Sangita Reang(supra). In the said case, the Court had drawn three categories of teachers. Since the petitioner was previously appointed as a Graduate Teacher and has now been appointed as an Under Graduate Teacher, his case will fall under Category
- III of the said judgement in the context of which the Court had issued following directions :
Page - 7 of 12 "30. Under the circumstances, petitions are disposed of with following directions:
* * *
(iii) In Category-III cases, the petitioners' past service would be counted for the limited purpose of retaining their leave credit, provident fund, pension and gratuity and further that they will be placed in the regular scale of pay from the date of their fresh appointment and the pay will be fixed at the minimum of the scale. They would receive all admissible allowances."
[8] Coming to the petitioner's second grievance, the same requires a closer scrutiny. As noted earlier, the decision of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra) which eventually came to be confirmed by the Supreme Court, rendered thousands of teachers previously selected and recruited on regular basis jobless. The teachers' body went on making representations to the Government for finding appropriate solution. It appears that the Government took a decision to absorb such teachers in alternate Government posts of Group C and D cadres. Some of the teachers were not satisfied with this. They, therefore, approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2868/2020 by Ajay Debbarma and Ors. In the said appeal, the appellants have challenged a judgment of the High Court dated 3rd October, 2019 passed in WP(C) No.1040/2019 which was also a sequel to the decision in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra).
Page - 8 of 12 In the said proceedings, the State Government appeared and conveyed to the Supreme Court that "it is crystal clear that the Respondent-State Government has been giving age relaxation to ad-hoc teachers in the past also complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court in the judgment 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 31st 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."
[9] The said appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court by a judgment dated 5th August, 2020 in which following observations were made:
"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 to degrade the teachers but Page - 9 of 12 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."
[10] It can thus be said that the State Government has taken a conscious policy decision to grant age relaxation to the teachers who were affected by the decision in case of Tanmoy Nath and that the same would continue up to 31st March, 2023. This was conveyed to the Supreme Court on an affidavit in the above noted proceedings. Taking note of the contents of the affidavit, the appeal of the concerned teachers was dismissed. The Government is thus bound by the said policy decision. In fact, the Government does not even wish to resile from the said position. It only wishes to make a distinction in case of the petitioner by suggesting that the petitioner though may have previously being situated similarly along with other teachers who came to be terminated by virtue of the Page - 10 of 12 decision in case of Tanmoy Nath, since he has been now recruited as an Under Graduate Teacher by a fresh regular selection process, for recruitment to the post of Graduate Teacher he cannot seek age relaxation. [11] In my view, this distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents in his case is not permissible. Firstly, as noted, the petitioner was previously selected and appointed as a Graduate Teacher. His selection along with large number of other similarly situated teachers came to be set aside by the High Court. He was allowed to apply for regular selection which would be undertaken freshly. By that time this was done, a requirement of a regular teacher having passed TET examination was introduced. The petitioner had cleared only Paper I of TET. He could, therefore, apply only for the post of Under Graduate Teacher which he did and was selected and appointed. Shortly thereafter he also passed the second paper of TET which made him eligible for the post of Graduate Teacher.
[12] In the meantime, as noted, by way of a larger policy decision the Government has decided to grant age relaxation to all teachers affected by the judgment of Tanmoy Nath for the recruitment processes till 31st March, 2023. The petitioner was previously recruited and appointed as a Graduate Teacher which status he seeks to regain by subjecting himself to Page - 11 of 12 a fresh selection process. His request for age relaxation cannot be turned down on the ground that he is already appointed as an Under Graduate Teacher. Such a distinction would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The issue can be looked from a slightly different angel. Had the petitioner been eligible and applied for the post of a Graduate Teacher, like many other candidates but had failed to get selected, he like other failed candidates, would have qualified for age relaxation as per the Government policy. Simply because the petitioner succeeded in getting selected to the post of Under Graduate Teacher, this concession cannot be denied to him. Surely, the petitioner cannot be put in a worse of position by virtue of his selection then another candidate who failed such selection test.
[13] It is, however, clarified that the intention of this discussion and conclusion is not to permit age relaxation to those teachers who have already been selected in the same cadre as they were previously holding, by giving them an additional opportunity to improve their position beyond which they were holding prior to the decision in case of Tanmoy Nath(supra), by claiming age relaxation as a right The same must depend on the policy of the Government.
Page - 12 of 12 [14] In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
(i) The petitioner in his new appointment as an Under Graduate Teacher, shall receive the same benefits of the past service as provided to Category-III cases in Smt. Sangita Reang's judgment (supra).
(ii) The petitioner shall be granted age relaxation as per the Government policy disclosed before the Supreme Court for future selection processes for the post of Graduate Teacher, if he applies.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( AKIL KURESHI, CJ ) Sukhendu