Facts
The appellants were appointed as Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) on 15.07.2010
Source reference: p. 2The appointments followed an advertisement issued under the 2003 Employment Policy of Tripura.
Source reference: p. 2In *Tanmoy Nath v. State of Tripura (2014)*, the High Court struck down this policy as unconstitutional and set aside all related appointments.
Source reference: p. 2-3The Supreme Court affirmed this in 2017, directing a fresh selection process while allowing existing teachers to continue ad-hoc until completion.
Source reference: p. 4-5Consequently, the appellants' services were terminated on 31.03.2020.
Source reference: p. 5After a prior litigation regarding natural justice, the Directorate issued a reasoned order on 02.05.2024 confirming the termination.
Source reference: p. 6The appellants challenged this via WP(C) No. 507/2024, which was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000.
Source reference: p. 7This writ appeal follows.
Source reference: no citationIssues
Whether the appellants' appointments were saved by the prospective nature mentioned in paragraph 127 of the *Tanmoy Nath* judgment.
Source reference: p. 9Whether clause (e) of the Supreme Court's 2017 order exempted PGTs from the termination of the 2003 policy appointments.
Source reference: p. 10Whether the termination order was void for violation of the principles of natural justice.
Source reference: p. 11Law Applied
The court applied the Full Bench precedent of *Sri Pranab Deb v. State of Tripura*, which held that the *Tanmoy Nath* judgment was a judgment *in rem* and paragraph 127 did not exempt teachers appointed under the 2003 policy from termination.
Source reference: p. 8-9It relied on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench in *Golak Nath v. State of Punjab*, which established that only the Supreme Court possesses the power of prospective overruling.
Source reference: p. 3-4Regarding natural justice, the court applied the "useless formality" theory from *S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan* and *Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan*, which states that notice is unnecessary where only one legal conclusion is possible based on indisputable facts.
Source reference: p. 11-12Reasoning
The court reasoned that paragraph 127 of the *Tanmoy Nath* judgment could not be read in isolation to save the appellants' jobs, as the Division Bench lacked the legal authority for prospective overruling.
Source reference: p. 9-10It further clarified that the Supreme Court's 2017 direction in clause (e)—concerning qualifications for Class IX and above—referred only to future appointments under the mandatory new policy, not to validating old appointments made under a struck-down policy.
Source reference: p. 10-11Regarding procedural fairness, the court held that since the termination was a direct consequence of a binding Supreme Court mandate declaring the underlying policy illegal, issuing a show-cause notice would have been a "useless formality" as no other legal outcome was possible.
Source reference: p. 11-12However, the court found that the appellants' reliance on paragraph 127 was a plausible, albeit incorrect, legal belief, making the imposition of ₹50,000 in costs unwarranted.
Source reference: p. 12-13Holding
The High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the merits of the termination but allowed it limited to the setting aside of the costs.
It held that the appellants' services were lawfully terminated pursuant to the judgment *in rem* in *Tanmoy Nath* as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Source reference: p. 9The order dated 02.05.2024 was upheld, but the direction of the Single Judge imposing a cost of ₹50,000 on the appellants was set aside.
Source reference: p. 13Original Court PDF
Shri Pradip Debbarma & Others v. The State of Tripura & Others [WA No. 104 of 2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in