Tripura Teachers’ Recruitment: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Illegal Appointments and Age Relaxation

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 5, 2020, addressed the long-standing issue of the appointment and termination of 10,323 teachers in the state of Tripura. The case revolved around the legality of these appointments, their annulment by the High Court, and the subsequent measures taken by the state government to accommodate the affected teachers.

The case originated from a challenge to the recruitment of teachers in Tripura, initiated through advertisements in 2002, 2006, and 2009. The High Court of Tripura, in the case of Tanmoy Nath & Others vs. The State of Tripura & Others, found the selection process to be illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appointments were annulled, and the state was directed to undertake fresh recruitment while providing temporary protection to the affected teachers until new selections were completed.

Background of the Case

The recruitment process in question led to the appointment of 10,323 teachers. However, it was later challenged on the grounds that the selection process lacked transparency and fairness. The High Court ruled that:

• The selection process violated the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.
• The appointments were arbitrary and influenced by favoritism and nepotism.
• There was no clear methodology in awarding marks, leading to a lack of transparency.

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeals, upheld the High Court’s decision, stating:

“We live in a country which is governed by the rule of law. The action of each and every official or government functionary has to be in accordance with the Constitution. The rule of law is the golden thread which runs through our Constitution.”

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court had to address several key questions:

• Whether the annulment of the teachers’ appointments was justified.
• Whether the affected teachers should be granted any relief, including age relaxation for fresh recruitment.
• Whether the state’s creation of 12,000 non-teaching posts in 2017 was a genuine effort or an attempt to circumvent the earlier court order.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Ajoy Debbarma & Others)

The petitioners, comprising affected teachers, argued that:

• They were not directly involved in the legal proceedings that led to the annulment of their appointments.
• They had served in their positions for years and had gained experience that should not be disregarded.
• The state should provide age relaxation so that they could participate in fresh recruitments.
• The loss of employment had severely affected their livelihoods, and they sought reappointment or alternative employment.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Tripura)

The state of Tripura, represented by its counsel, argued that:

• The recruitment process was found to be arbitrary, and it could not justify retaining illegally appointed teachers.
• The state had already provided temporary employment protection and was willing to offer age relaxation for fresh recruitment.
• The attempt to create 12,000 non-teaching posts in 2017 was blocked by the Supreme Court as it was seen as an effort to circumvent the earlier judgment.
• The government was considering alternative employment opportunities for the affected teachers.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court and emphasized the need for fair and transparent recruitment. The Court noted:

• The selection process was deeply flawed and could not be legitimized retrospectively.
• While the affected teachers had served for years, their appointments remained illegal, and no additional benefits could be granted.
• The state’s move to create new non-teaching positions for these teachers was an attempt to bypass the Court’s previous orders.
• However, considering the hardships faced by the teachers, the state’s proposal to offer age relaxation for fresh recruitment was fair.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court concluded that:

• The annulment of the teachers’ appointments was justified and final.
• Age relaxation would be granted to affected teachers for fresh recruitment until March 31, 2023.
• Those who failed to secure teaching posts through fresh recruitment could be considered for alternative employment in Group-C and Group-D posts.
• However, past service as teachers would not be counted towards seniority or pension benefits.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling had significant implications:

• It reinforced the principle that government recruitments must be transparent and fair.
• It clarified that illegal appointments, even if prolonged, do not create an entitlement to permanent employment.
• It provided a limited relief by allowing affected teachers to participate in fresh recruitment with age relaxation.
• It restricted the state from using alternative employment as a backdoor means to reinstate disqualified candidates.

By balancing constitutional principles with humanitarian concerns, the Supreme Court ensured that justice was served while upholding the integrity of the recruitment process.

Petitioner Name: Ajoy Debbarma & Others.
Respondent Name: State of Tripura & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Tripura.
Judgment Date: 05-08-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ajoy Debbarma & Othe vs State of Tripura & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-08-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category