The full Bench of High Court of Tripura presided over by Chief Justice A K Singh in a unanimous decision took strong note of the practice of 10, 323 teachers’ moving to courts time and again despite several clear and speaking orders regarding termination of their service.
The Full Bench , which sat for the first time in the history of the High Court of Tripura with Chief Justice AK Singh, Justice T Amarnath Gaud and Justice Arindam Lodh on chair , not only set aside the terminated teacher Pranab Deb’s plea but also imposed Rs 25, 000 penalty on him.
The entire High Court proceeding was also for the first time streamed live in HC’s Youtube channel.
Pranab Deb, one among the terminated 10, 323 teachers, who sought to plead on the basis that he had not been individually given termination notice and that he was not anyway be included in the previous case of Tanmoy Nath . His lawyer Amrit Lal Saga tried to convince the court on only one point that since his job had been terminated without any notice served to him individually, it infringed upon the Natural Justice of the petitioner as a citizen.
Advocate Saha was countered by Advocate General Sidhhartha Sankar De.
Having heard the both sides, the full Bench, not only set aside the petition but also imposed Rs 25,000 fine on the petitioner.
The High Court full Bench observed that there were series of similar petitions in the courts and there speaking orders in all the cases . The present petitioner failed to point out as to how he should be treated differently. The High Court also took note of the previous judgments given time to time, including that of Justice Arindam Lodh and Justice T Amarnath Gaud and found that present petitioner warranted penal action for once again using the time of the High Court. The Advocate General also pleaded that penalty should be imposed as the petitioner’s contention appeared to have been ‘cavalier’ in the light of previous judgments which had found the petitioners’ contention ‘despicable’ .
The High Court full bench made it clear and loud that since the entire selection process through which 10, 323 teachers including the present petitioner had been set aside by the Apex Court for being arbitrary, indulging in nepotism, favouritism etc. Chief Justice while giving the verdict pointed out that the petitioner’s job was terminated not for any personal wrongdoing but for the fact that entire selection process had been set aside and as such there was difference.
He also pointed out that there were notifications from the government in this regard which were well publicised in the media.
Apart from that the high Court also took note of the fact that when the teachers’ jobs had been terminated the present petitioner did not move the court as it was his case now. Besides when the extension of six months’ time on ad hoc basis was given the petitioner also enjoyed it the extension and did not raise any question. At was after so many years when there were several judgments he filed the petition.
