Justice T Amarnath Gaud of High Court of Tripura has clarified that his order of May 3 last relating to the Writ Petition filed by three terminated teachers of the 10, 323 did not anyway ask for ‘reappointment’ of the terminated teachers. Or, allowed them to continue in the services.
Justice Gaud’s order has come on Wednesday following state government’s petition for review/ clarification of his order given on May 03 last pertaining to the case WP(C) NO. 334 of 2021 as it created some sort of confusions.
Justice Gaud in his Wednesday order has made it clear that his judgment on May 03 was relating to only three petitioners – Pradip Debbarma, Moynal Hossain and Kanai Lai Das and that it was judgment at rem- meaning it would not be applicable for all ( here 10, 323 terminated teachers).
Then Justice Gaud also in his review order (Review No. 40 of 2023) has clarified that he did neither allow the prayers made in the Writ Petition nor did issue any direction for any of the petitioners reinstatement in the job or the 10, 323 terminated teachers. They were also not allowed to continue in the service.
The High Court has also taken strong note of misinterpretation of his judgment and said that state government might initiate Police investigation to identify the persons who were spreading misinformation in media creating public confusion.
It may be mentioned here that soon after Justice Gaud’s observation that the termination letter issued by the state government for the 10, 323 teachers was not ‘speaking’ order , some of the teachers felt that they were given back their job as teachers.
Justice Gaud’s order was : “According to this Court, the memorandum dated 31.03.2020, which has been issued by the respondents is not a ‘speaking order’ and it is ‘an omnibus communication’ is set aside with a ‘liberty to the respondents to pass a reasoned and specific order in the subject matter relating to the petitioners’. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision, they can avail remedies under law”.
It may be mentioned here that there were two judgments also from Justice Arindm Lodh of the same High Court in almost similar nature. In one case Justice Lodh observed : I find no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination order issued against the petitioner is bad in law due to violation of doctrine of the principles of natural justice”.
“…the present writ petition, in the opinion of this court, deserves no consideration and is liable to be dismissed” said Justice Lodh.
In this context , Justice Lodh also noted : “The principles of natural justice are not to be put in a straight -jacket formula. The scope of hearing to satisfy the principles of natural justice depends upon variable circumstances.”
“…..teachers have no right to raise the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. Their services were extended for fixed tenure at the mercy of the Court where it was decided that such services of the teachers would come to an end on and from 31.03.2020. It is clear that where the appointment is contractual and by efflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the respondent could have no right to continue in the post. The service of the petitioner was not terminated as a measure of punishment. Hence, providing of opportunity of hearing was not at all necessary for terminating his service”. Justice Lodh then sent the matter to the Chief Justice of the high Court Justice AK Singh.
