Sri Rajkumar Debnath v. The State of Tripura and 5 Others

Judgment & Order :

02.05.2023

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Judgment & Order(Oral)

Heard Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent No.6.

2.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents and each of them to set aside and/or quash the order of transfer contained in Memo dated 04.03.2022 forthwith and in no time.

3.

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "i. Admit the petition of the Petitioner. ii. Issue Notice upon the Respondents. iii. Call for records relevant to the subject matter. iv. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to set aside and/or quash the Memo No.F.1(3)/EDN(D)/Estt./2021/4240 dated

04.03.2022 forthwith and in no time. v. Issue Writ prohibiting the Respondents or each of them from giving effect to the said transfer order in any manner whatsoever. vi. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to allow the Petitioner to continue his service as Upper Primary Teacher in Jeolcherra S.B. School."

4.

The facts in brief as that the petitioner initially engaged as a Contract Teacher for Upper Primary (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) School under Education Inspectorate, Kamalpur for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.04.2010 vide memo dated 31.03.2010 and posted at Jeolachara S.B. School. Condition of engagement was specifically mentioned in the aforesaid memo. All on a sudden, petitioner received one memo dated 04.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 and from the said memo, the petitioner came to know that he was transferred to Chandra Roaja Para S.B. School Raishya Bari Block under Inspectorate of School (TTAADC) w.e.f. 08.03.2022 until further order. Said transfer order was passed by the respondent No.4 violating the conditions of engagement of the petitioner. Since, the service of the petitioner is purely contract basis and therefore, without specific condition of transfer, his place of posting cannot be changed. Apart from that, engagement of the petitioner was issued by the Block Project Coordinator, Education Inspectorate, Kamalpur i.e. the respondent No.5 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be transferred beyond the Sub-Division of Kamalpur. The transfer order passed by the respondent No.4 is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power.

Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner before this court for redressel.

5.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the service utilization order issued by the respondent No.4 i.e. District Project Coordinator, Dhalai District Education Officer I/C Dhalai is not at all ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power as claimed by the

petitioner. Further, it is denied that the respondent No.4 had placed the service of the petitioner beyond his jurisdiction i.e. beyond Dhalai District.

6.

The service of the petitioner is placed in Raishyabari Block within Dhalai District until further order only taking into account of interest of students, as an interim measure, due to acute shortage of teachers, after 12 years of service rendered by the petitioner in same place. It is pertinent to mention here that the delegation of power for service utilization of such category has been vested upon the District Education Officer (District Project Coordinator) within the District in exercise of power conferred upon him in the event of public interest i.e. exigency as well as personal interest of the incumbents. In view of the above stated statements, the service utilization order issued by the respondent No.4 is not arbitrary and the relief as claimed by the petitioner must summarily be rejected.

7.

Having considered the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the petitioner to represent his grievance before the concerned respondent in accordance with law along with all relevant documents and thereafter, the respondents may consider is case as per procedure, if the petitioner is entitled to.

In that view of the matter, the present petition stands dismissed.

Pending application/s, if any, shall also stands dismissed.

JUDGE Sabyasachi B

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C)No.270 of 2022 Sri Rajkumar Debnath, son of Sri Ananta Debnath, resident of 10/2 Chandrai Chara, Ambassa, P.O. & P.S. Ambassa, Pin-799289, District-Dhalai Tripura ……….Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Tripura, represented by Secretary Elementary Education Department, Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, P.O. & Pin-New Capital Complex, Agartala-799010, District-West Tripura 2. The Director, Elementary Education Department, Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala-799001, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura 3. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Government of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala-799001, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura 4. District Education Officer, District Education Office, Jawharnagar, Ambassa-799289, P.S. Ambassa, District-Dhalai Tripura 5. Block Project Co-ordinator, Block Project Office, Office of the Education Inspectorate, Kamalpur-799277, P.O. & P.S. Kamalpur, District-Dhalai Tripura 6. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001 ……….Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Saha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI. Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A. Date of Hearing &