AGARTALA, Feb 13 (TIWN):Tripura's huge unemployment, State Govt's apathy, wrong recruitment policy causing further uncertainty over the recruitment of 10323 teachers which was declared illegal by Tripura High Court on June 7, 2014. No end to the worries of 10,323 teachers of Tripura, who even after being regularized by Tripura Govt undergoing heavy uncertainty. The long pending 10,323 teachers’ case re-scheduled and the haring to be held on Feb 27. Earlier Assam, Orissa Govt were defeated in similar cases of irregularity of recruitment rules for Teachers’ post. After that in the Jut Mill case also the Tripura Govt was defeated. Thus in this condition Tripura Govt is trying to delay the case as far as possible. Earlier Although opposition BJP claimed to give pressure on the Tripura Govt but the claim remained without any action till day. BJP State President Biplab Deb said that…”if needed Govt will assist lawyers also”…but his words remained just as words".

It’s worthy to mention here that Tripura govt moved to Supreme Court when High Court canclled the jobs of 10,323 teachers’ jobs in 2014 as the jobs were given without going by rules of recruitment policy. 

High Court further ordered the state Govt to fill up the vacancies within December that year. But Tripura govt any how delaying the issue, so that 2018 election can be managed.

 In this situation the fate of the 10,323 teachers’ are waiting for the Supreme Court’s final hearing.

The Fate of 10,323 UGT, GT and PGT teachers, now seems to depend on the next hearing of the Supreme Court (SC), scheduled on Feb 27. 

Under CPI-M Eras, Job recruitment, Promotion have become contradictory & the Tripura government has been opposing the setting up of the school service commission and TET. But the Central Govt. rejected to agree with that as under Right to Education Era, it has been mandatory to pass TET before appointing as teachers in every states.

 But after TET was launched in Tripura, job-appointing corruption didn’t leave the state. From Firemen job to TBSE, in every sectors youths started to questioning about Job appointment. Under Tripura Govt. while appointing someone in a post for Govt. employee no rule is followed, which was proven when Tripura High Court canceled in total 10,323 teachers job, finding massive corruption held under Tripura Education dept, while recruiting someone in job.

Thus uncertainty looms large over the future of 10,323 teachers working in different government schools of Tripura, whose labs were cancelled by the High Court with effect from December 31 because of faulty appointment process based on unconstitutional employment policy, on May 7.

Three separate SLPs are currently under trial at the Supreme Court in connection with the Tripura High Court verdict terminating jobs of 10,323 Graduate, Under Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers.

“It is very unfortunate that the hearing of the SLP was not taken up in the SC when Abhishek Manu Singhvi is moving the case in the Supreme Court. Congress is spreading such rumors just to create confusion among the people,” Bhowmik aid.

The first SLP against the Tripura High Court order was admitted in the Supreme Court on May 7.

A division bench of Supreme Court led by Justice Jagdish Singh Kher and Justice Arun Mishra postponed the hearing yesterday.

A Division Bench of High Court led by Chief Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice SC Das ordered the cancellation of jobs of Under Graduate, Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers. The state government inducted 1,100 post graduates, 4,617 graduate and 4,606 under-graduate teachers in three phases since March 2010.

Recently, the Supreme Court has come to the aid of the Tripura High Court to resolve problems arising out of its lack of judges, especially its backlog of long-pending cases.  Due to the inactiveness of the police and State Govt. assisted lawyers there are at least 35 cases pending for long in which recusals have been sought by the Tripura High Court judges. It is not possible to constitute a Division Bench or a separate bench if a judge recuses himself from hearing a specific case on grounds of conflict of interest.