Tripura High Court
Mr. P. K. Pal vs Mr. D. Bhattacharya on 7 December, 2021 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C)No.724 of 2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Pal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
07/12/2021
Ms. Chandni Chandran, Director, Elementary Education,
Government of Tripura has appeared in person in the proceeding
in terms of the order dated 07.10.2021.
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the
respondents has submitted that against the order dated
10.12.2019 delivered in WP(C)No.572 of 2019, the state has
preferred an appeal but for non-availability of the appropriate
Bench, the matter has not been listed so far.
Mr. P. K. Pal, learned counsel has stated that the petitioner
has not received any notice from this court. The reason is
obvious.
In the order dated 07.10.2021, this court had observed
inter alia as follows:
“I am of the strong prima facie view that the said authority has completely
misconstrued the order passed by the Court. The question of the age limit
and such age limit being within the range of relaxation permitted under the
Scheme was already gone into. The direction to the authority was to
consider the case of the petitioner on merits. It was, therefore, not open
Page 4 of 4 for the said authority to once again bring back the question of
the age of the petitioner at the time of the death of his mother. Without so
saying, the Director of Elementary Education has disregarded the Court
Page 2 of 2
order and in my prima facie view acted contemptuously. I wonder why the
petitioner did not choose to file a contempt petition against the said officer.
Under the circumstances, while issuing notice returnable on 11.11.2021, the
respondent No.2 is directed to examine the case of the petitioner for
compassionate appointment on MERIT and place the decision before the
Court “WITHOUT FAIL” on the returnable date. Any noncompliance of these
directions would result into serious consequences against the respondent
No.2. In case these directions are not complied with, he shall remain
personally present before the Court on the returnable date to explain his
conduct. This order shall be communicated by the learned Government
Advocate to the said authority for its compliance.”
Even though Ms. Chandran has appeared in person in the
proceeding this court would like to get her explanation in view of
the order dated 07.10.2021 in the form of a short affidavit.
Such affidavit shall be filed by 21.12.2021.
The personal appearance of Ms. Chandni Chandran stands
dispensed with.
JUDGE
Moumita
Comments