Tripura High Court
Santajoy Tripura vs State Of Tripura And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2021
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.579 of 2020
Santajoy Tripura
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura And 6 Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
09/02/2021
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
02. The facts are mostly admitted. The petitioner was appointed as the Contract Teacher (Primary) under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) initially vide the memorandum dated 28.06.2006 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] for one year on fixed monthly honorarium. It appears from the records that said engagement was renewed time to time and the petitioner had continued till 30.08.2013 when one Pradip Das, a Sub-Inspector of Police, Ambassa police station informed the Inspector of Schools, Dhalai that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2013 in connection with Ambassa PS Case No.36 of 2013 dated Page 2 of 6 18.07.2013 under Sections 326/307/394 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner has also acceded to the said information by filing a representation on 06.09.2013 and he sought coordination of his unintentional absence from the duties. The incidence of arrest was reported to the Principal Officer (Education), Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, Khumulwng by the forwarding letter dated 10.09.2013.
03. In consequence thereof, the petitioner had been treated terminated from the service with effect from 22.07.2013 by the memorandum dated 30.10.2013 [Annexure- 6 to the writ petition]. The petitioner filed a representation on 03.04.2014 informing the authority that the police report has been filed on culmination of the investigation against him. Till the trial is over, he may be allowed to resume his duties. But the respondents did not take any positive action.
04. There is no dispute that by the judgment dated 03.09.2013 as passed in Case No.ST(T-1) 07 of 2015 emanating from Ambassa PS Case No.36 of 2013 as stated, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge as framed against him at the threshold of the trial under Sections 394/326/307 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act 'on benefit of doubt.'
05. Having thus acquitted from the charge, the petitioner filed a representation to the Inspector of Schools on 12.07.2019 Page 3 of 6 to reinstate him in his service. But for long, no response was made available to the petitioner. However, it appears from the memorandum dated 24.04.2020 [Annexure-R/10 to the reply filed by the respondents] which Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has claimed to have never served on the petitioner, that the State Project Director & Director, EE has observed that the petitioner's disengaged period has exceeded a prolonged duration of more than 6(six) years and the administration being unaware of his pedagogical competency level in teaching ability, his prayer could not be considered. Hence, they regretted at this moment. That apart, there was no process going on in the Department for fresh engagement of contractual teachers. Such engagements, if any, will now be subject to norms of NCTE guidelines and RTE Act. His engagement was simply an annual contractual one which has lapsed and there is no possibility of fresh engagement after such a long duration/gap.
06. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has fairly submitted that there is no substantive right of the petitioner to continue in the post but principles of fairness demand that when a person has been terminated on the basis of his implication in a criminal case and when that indictment had fallen through after the trial the said person should be considered for restituting his status that he had lost for such indictment.
Page 4 of 6
07. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents therefore be directed to consider his reinstatement or restitution in the service.
08. But Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has quite robustly submitted that that cannot be done inasmuch as the strict prescription that has been provided by NCTE guidelines. For this purpose the respondents have prepared a comparative table of qualification in respect of the petitioner and the qualifications prescribed by NCTE which is as follows:
Educational Qualification of Sri Educational Qualification criteria as Santajoy Tripura, ex-Contract per guidelines of National Council Teacher, Samagra Shiksha for Teacher Education (NCTE) vide Notification dated 28th June, 2018 "F.No.NCTE-Regl 012/16/2018 - In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009) and in pursuance of notification number S.O. 750 (E), dated the 31st March, 2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, the National Madhyamik Passed (2003) Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) hereby makes the following further amendments to the notification number F.N.61-
03/20/2010/NCTE/(N & S), dated the 23rd August, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part III, Section 4, dated 25th August, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the said notification namely:
(1)In the said notification, in para 1 in sub-para (i), in clause (a) after the words and brackets "Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), Page 5 of 6 the following shall be inserted, namely:
OR "Graduation with at least 50% marks and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)"
(2)In the said notification in para 3, for sub-para (a), the following sub-para shall be substituted namely:
"(a) who has acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Education from any NCTE recognized institution shall be considered for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher shall mandatorily undergo six month Bridge Course in Elementary Education recognized by the NCTE, within two years of such appointment as Primary Teacher."
09. That apart, there is no process going on in the department for engaging any Contractual Teacher. Even if, such process commenced, the engagement of the Contractual Teachers will be rigidly guided by the NCTE guidelines and RTE Act, 2009. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has particularly submitted that those provisions as referred above do not make any distinction between the Contractual Teacher and Regular Teacher so far their qualification and experience are concerned.
Thus, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has submitted that the petitioner cannot be appointed neither his status can be restored as the respondents cannot be held responsible for the long absence from the service nor for discontinuation. Page 6 of 6
10. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the petitioner did not have any right to the post, as the contractual engagement is not tantamount to holding a civil post. Hence, the petitioner's re-engagement or restitution of service can only be decided by the respondents. This court cannot exercise its jurisdiction for directing the respondents in the circumstances as noted in order to reinstate the petitioner.
Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Moumita