10323 Teachers Termination Case to Be Heard Again in Tripura High Court on August 18

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, August 17, 2025

The long-pending case filed by the three categories of the 10,323 terminated teachers in Tripura took an interesting turn at the High Court before the Single Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Datta Purkayastha. The matter, listed as Bidhan Das and Ors. vs. the State of Tripura and Ors., will come up for further hearing on tomorrow August 18 at Court No. 3, subject to confirmation in the official cause list.

The State Government on August 8, narrowly escaped a cost order after failing to furnish documents sought by the Court, particularly the Employment Policy of 2001. When the Government Counsels sought an adjournment in the morning, the request was strongly opposed by senior advocate Tarini K. Nayak, Amrit Lal Saha and Aveek Saha appearing for the petitioners. While granting the adjournment, Justice Datta Purkayastha threatened to imposed costs of Rs. 2,000 on the State and made it clear that the case must be concluded at the earliest hearing, irrespective of whether the Government submits the required documents.

However, on August 8, post-lunch hearing session at 2:30 PM, Government Advocate Mangal Debbarma mentioned that the necessary documents had been filed, prompting the Bench though initially reluctant to allow the matter to proceed since counsels from both sides were present. A detailed on camera live hearing then ensued on August 8 for nearly three hours.

During the proceedings, the Bench asked the Government a pointed question: 'You have taken their jobs in pursuance of the Tanmoy Nath Judgment. Tell us how they are covered under the said Judgment?' The Court sought clarity on whether the teachers’ appointments were made under the Policy of 2001, as claimed by the petitioners or under the Employment Policy of 2003, which had been struck down by a High Court judgment delivered on May 7, 2014, by then Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Gupta.

At the outset of arguments, Government Counsel Mangal Debbarma submitted that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in the Tanmoy Nath matter. On the other hand, the petitioners advocates Amritlal Saha, Aveek Saha and

Tarini K. Nayak, argued that the very foundation of the retrenchment was faulty.

The petitioners advocates Saha and Nayak raised two key questions for the Court’s consideration: whether the 2003 Employment Policy ever legally came into existence, and even if it did, whether the Tanmoy Nath Judgment based on that policy was applicable to the petitioners appointments at all. Supporting the contention, Advocate Amrit Lal Saha argued that the State Government’s en masse termination order violated Article 311 of the Constitution, citing even the Constituent Assembly debates and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s observations on the provision.

The Government side, however, could not effectively counter the points raised by the petitioners counsels. After hearing both sides, Justice Datta Purkayastha directed that the petitioners counsels be allowed to peruse the documents submitted by the State before the next hearing, and adjourned the matter to August 18.

The outcome of the case will be crucial in determining whether the 10,323 terminated teachers stand any chance of legal relief.

more news...