The Full Bench of the High Court of Tripura, led by Chief Justice A. K. Singh, has unanimously addressed the recurring issue of terminated 10,323 teachers repeatedly resorting to legal action despite clear and unambiguous orders regarding the termination of their services.
This landmark ruling, which marked the first-ever convening of a Full Bench in the history of the High Court of Tripura, included Chief Justice AK Singh, Justice T. Amarnath Gaud, and Justice Arindam Lodh.
The Full Bench not only dismissed the plea of the terminated teacher, Pranab Deb, but also imposed a substantial penalty of Rs 25,000 on him.
For the first time in its history, the entire High Court proceedings were broadcast live on the HC’s YouTube channel.
Pranab Deb, one of the terminated 10,323 teachers, based his argument on the claim that he had not received an individual termination notice and should not be included in previous cases, such as that of Tanmoy Nath. His lawyer, Amrit Lal Saha, attempted to persuade the court that his client’s job termination without a prior individual notice violated his rights to natural justice as a citizen.
Advocate Saha’s arguments were contested by Advocate General Sidhhartha Sankar De.
After hearing both sides, the Full Bench not only dismissed the petition but also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner. The High Court’s Full Bench noted that there were numerous similar cases in the courts, all of which had received clear rulings. The present petitioner failed to establish any distinctive grounds for his case.
The High Court also took into account previous judgments issued by Justices Arindam Lodh and T. Amarnath Gaud and found that the petitioner was liable for the penalty for wasting the High Court’s time. The Advocate General contended that the petitioner’s argument appeared ‘cavalier’ in light of previous judgments that had deemed similar petitions ‘despicable.’
The High Court Full Bench made it explicitly clear that the termination of the 10,323 teachers, including the present petitioner, stemmed from the Apex Court’s decision to annul the entire selection process for being arbitrary, nepotistic, and favoritist.
Chief Justice Singh emphasized that the petitioner’s job was terminated not due to personal misconduct but as a consequence of the annulment of the selection process. He also highlighted that the government had widely publicized notifications regarding this matter in the media.
Furthermore, the High Court noted that the petitioner did not file any legal action when the teachers’ jobs were initially terminated. The petitioner also enjoyed a six-month extension on an ad hoc basis without raising objections. It was only after several years and numerous judgments that he filed the petition.
The High Court stressed that it was ‘too late in the day’ to claim ignorance of the notifications in the Tanmoy Nath proceedings since newspaper notifications were admittedly published. Additionally, a Division Bench in the Bijoy Krishna case had reiterated the same. The Full Bench emphasized that there was no effort on the petitioner’s part to distinguish his case from that of Tanmoy Nath.