For the last few days confusion raged over the terminated 10,323 teachers’ claim that Justice T Amarnath Goud of High Court of Tripura had on May 03 last set aside their termination order ( termination memo of 31.03.2020) and as such they should be reinstated in their service as teachers (WP(C) No.334 of 2021).. Based on this claim the terminated teachers also staged deputation in front of the government authorities.
The confusion deepened as another High Court judge Justice Arindam Lodh in no uncertain terms set aside a similar writ petition on May 30 last with different observation from that of Justice Goud . The matter in fact is now set to be placed before the Tripura High Court Chief Justice AK Singh.
While giving verdict on the case filed by Pradip Debbarma, Moynal Hossain , Kanailal Das as petitioners vs State of Tripura and others Justice Goud said, “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”.
“Having observed thus, this court does find any merit as argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of”.
Apparently, Justice Goud permitted the respondents, that is the State government and others, to issue the same (termination) order in a modified form which should be ‘reasoned’ and ‘specific’ instead of ‘omnibus communication’.
In the meantime, having heard a similar writ petition ( 893 of 2022) filed by Pranab Deb (petitioner) vs State of Tripura and others, Justice Aridam Lodh who in his judgment on May 30 last quoted all relevant government and Court orders said, “from the above factual backgrounds, it is clear that the petitioner and other similarly situated graduate teachers have been terminated from services in compliance of the judgment of this Court affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court had specifically fixed the period of service and in the order it is clearly stated that the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated graduate teachers may be extended for a period of 6(six) months. However, due to scarcity of teachers in various schools, the Government of Tripura approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court seeking further extension of their service up to 31.03.2020 vide order dated 01.11.2010, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the ad-hoc services of the petitioner and other similarly situated teachers would come to an end w.e.f. 31.03.2020.
“In the light of above discussion, 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 also referred to Justice T A Goud’s judgment and said : “After perusal and having given thoughtful consideration of the judgment passed in WP(C) 334 of 2021 ( by Justice T Goud) , in my opinion, none of the orders including the termination order passed by the respondents suffers from ambiguity. All the orders, as quoted here-in-above, were passed on the basis of the judgments and orders passed by a Division Bench of this court vis-à-vis the order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in pursuance of the applications filed by the State-respondents, which were well within the knowledge of the petitioner and other similarly placed teachers”.
Then Justice Lodh said, “as such, I respectfully disagree with my Ld. Brother Judge, necessitating the conclusion arrived at by this Court be referred to the Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of this Court to constitute an appropriate Bench to decide the reference”.
Justice Lodh then ordered that the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice of High Court of Tripura immediately.
(Courtesy Tripura Times)
