LAWS(GAU)-1995-12-22

STATE OF TRIPURA & OTHERS Vs. NEVEDITA DUTTA

Decided On December 18, 1995
State of Tripura and Others Appellant
V/S
Nevedita Dutta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State of Tripura and Director of School Education, respondents in the Civil Rule challenging, inter alia, the judgment and order dated Jan. 15,1994 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge quashed the cancellation of the offer of appointment issued earlier in favour of the respondent-petitioner and directed that the respondent-petitioner shall be forthwith appointed in the post of teacher with a fixed pay of Rs. 1,000.00 in respect of the offer of appointment bearing No. F. 1 (1 -38)/DSE/90 dated April 28, 1990 issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, the appellant-respondent No. 2 and allowed the petition.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows:

(3.) 2 The case of the respondent-petitioner is that the respondent-petitioner conveyed her acceptance to the said offer of appointment to the appellant-respondent No. 2 by a letter dated May 14, 1990 enclosing therewith all necessary documents. When the respondent-petitioner did not receive any letter of appointment waiting for a long time she again submitted a letter dated May 24, 1991 requesting the respondent No. 2 to issue the appointment letter. The respondent-petitioner stated that she made queries for reasons for inordinate delay in issuing her appointment letter when she found that other similarly situated persons like her were already appointed in various posts including the post of teacher on the basis of offer of appointment as done in the case of the respondent-petitioner. The respondent-petitioner came to know in the first week of Feb., 1993 that the offer of appointment issued to the respondent-petitioner was cancelled by the appellant-respondent No. 2 without giving any reasons therefore and without giving any opportunity to her to show cause against such cancellation. The respondent-petitioner further stated that the appellant-respondent No. 2 did not communicate the fact of cancellation of offer of appointment at any point of time to the respondent-petitioner.