Case: AJOY DEBBARMA Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

extending full age relaxation to them irrespective of the number of years required and for recruitments to be held till 31 st March, 2023 to compete for the post of teachers. It is also emphasized that only such ad-hoc teachers who fulfil the requisite qualifications and are otherwise eligible for employment, are being considered for such age relaxation. The affidavit also annexed a copy of Miscellaneous Application Diary No.11372 of 2020 which had indicated that there were about 10,618 vacant posts in Group-C and Group-D in different Departments and which had prayed:- A) Permit the State Government to consider and appoint these discharged ad-hoc teachers, to vacant sanctioned Group-C/Group-D posts in the services of the State of Tripura on fulfilment of the eligibility conditions and with age relaxation wherever it is required: B) Permit age relaxation in respect of such appointments as prayed hereinabove, of the ad-hoc teachers against sanctioned vacant non-technical Group-C and Group-D posts in different State Government Department. 14. In appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)D.No.1324 of 2020, an application was filed seeking permission to file additional documents. In terms of the document at Annexure A-2 the total vacant posts of teachers in the State were 20,165. The documents appended to the application were relied upon to submit that from 16.09.2016 till 29.05.2020, only 4,300 teachers were appointed in various categories in the State. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the concerned appellants submitted that considering the vacant posts of teachers in the State, the teachers whose services were disengaged and terminated after the completion of Academic Session 2019-2020 be suitably re-employed. It was further submitted that even if some such candidates were selected as teachers after allowing them age relaxation or even if some of the candidates were given alternate employment, some glaring issues would still arise as (a) their past service would not be counted for any purpose; (b) they would start at the bottom in the concerned service or employment; and (c) it would be a case of degradation if the teachers were offered employment in Group-C and Group-D. 15. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for some other appellants, also submitted that the concerned candidates be accommodated considering the vacancy situation, while Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing in another set of matters submitted that, it would certainly be a case of degradation if the former teachers were given appointments in Group-C and Group-D. On the other hand, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for some of the appellants submitted that his clients were willing to accept the alternate employment provided they were given chance to acquire the requisite qualification. 16. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the State submitted that the selection and appointments were set aside by the High Court vide its decision in Tanmoy Nath (2014) 2 TLR 731 as being arbitrary and illegal; and that it was found by the High Court that the selection was based purely on oral interview and suffered from nepotism and favouritism. He submitted that if the appointments themselves were illegal and the selection was set aside being arbitrary and invalid, the past service of such teachers could not be recognised in any manner and that the State Government had afforded adequate opportunity to the concerned candidates by giving age relaxation and apart therefrom no other benefit could be extended to such candidates. Responding to the annexures appended to the application filed in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.1324 of 2020, it was submitted that the figure of 20,165, being alleged vacant posts of teachers in the State, was not correct. Such figure was arrived at after taking into account the attempt on part of the State to create about 12,000 posts in Group-C in non- teaching category in the year 2017, which was subject matter of the action in the Contempt Petition before this Court in its Order dated 04.10.2017 and subsequent Orders. 17. The questions concerning legality and validity of the entire selection process and the appointments of about 10,323 teachers were gone into in detail in Tanmoy Nath (2014) 2 TLR 731 . The findings rendered by the High Court and its conclusions were accepted by this Court while dismissing the appeals arising therefrom. Though the services of the concerned teachers were initially protected only upto 31.12.2017, accepting the plea made on behalf of the State, the concerned date was extended from time to time. It is a matter of record that the services of such candidates now stand terminated. In terms of the directions issued in Tanmoy Nath (2014) 2 TLR 731 and appeal arising therefrom, the State is obliged to conduct selection process in which the concerned candidates will be entitled to participate with age relaxation. The age relaxation has now been afforded by the State in all selections till 31.03.2023, which benefit is quite adequate and proper. 18. In our view, considering the fact that the very selection and appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, no other advantage can be conferred upon the concerned candidates. It must be noted that the attempt on part of the State in offering certain alternate employment is not to degrade the teachers but some solace is being offered even in cases where the candidates do not succeed in the selections to the posts of teachers. The candidates, if they are otherwise competent and eligible, will certainly have every opportunity till 31.03.2023 to get selected for the posts of teachers in the State and by way of additional benefit those who are unsuccessful in such attempts may retain the alternate employment. In our view, it does not amount to any degradation. 19. Though the notice was confined to the question of age relaxation as was made clear in the Order dated 07.02.2020, we have considered submissions which were not strictly confined to said question. We, however, do not find any substance in the contentions, which are therefore rejected.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. The questions concerning legality and validity of the entire selection process and the appointments of about 10,323 teachers were gone into in detail in Tanmoy Nath (2014) 2 TLR 731 . The findings rendered by the High Court and its conclusions were accepted by this Court while dismissing the appeals arising therefrom. Though the services of the concerned teachers were initially protected only upto 31.12.2017, accepting the plea made on behalf of the State, the concerned date was extended from time to time. It is a matter of record that the services of such candidates now stand terminated. In terms of the directions issued in Tanmoy Nath (2014) 2 TLR 731  and appeal arising therefrom, the State is obliged to conduct selection process in which the concerned candidates will be entitled to participate with age relaxation. The age relaxation has now been afforded by the State in all selections till 31.03.2023, which benefit is quite adequate and proper.18. In our view, considering the fact that the very selection and appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, no other advantage can be conferred upon the concerned candidates. It must be noted that the attempt on part of the State in offering certain alternate employment is not to degrade the teachers but some solace is being offered even in cases where the candidates do not succeed in the selections to the posts of teachers. The candidates, if they are otherwise competent and eligible, will certainly have every opportunity till 31.03.2023 to get selected for the posts of teachers in the State and by way of additional benefit those who are unsuccessful in such attempts may retain the alternate employment. In our view, it does not amount to any degradation.19. Though the notice was confined to the question of age relaxation as was made clear in the Order dated 07.02.2020, we have considered submissions which were not strictly confined to said question. We, however, do not find any substance in the contentions, which are therefore rejected.