Safiya Malik

The Tripura High Court on Tuesday (January 7) directed the authorities to consider the promotion case of a Female Jailor serving in Sonamura Sub-Jail, Sepahijala District, to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the Home Jail Department. The court observed that while its jurisdiction to compel the State Government to fill vacant posts is limited, the government is obligated to provide reasons for leaving such posts unfilled.

The petitioner, a Female Jailor with over 12 years of service, approached the court seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent in the Home Jail Department, Government of Tripura. She contended that despite her eligibility and the availability of vacant posts, her request for promotion had not been considered.

The petitioner submitted a formal representation to the competent authority on November 6, 2023, requesting promotion. However, the representation remained unanswered, prompting her to file the writ petition. The petitioner sought relief in the form of:

1. A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote her to the position of Deputy Superintendent with retrospective effect from October 4, 2023, and grant her consequential service benefits.

2. An explanation from the respondents for the delay in filling the vacant posts.

The petitioner argued that the respondents’ inaction constituted a denial of her right to be considered for promotion. Her counsel emphasized that her experience and length of service made her eligible for promotion under the applicable service rules.

The respondents, represented by the learned Government Advocate, argued that promotion is not an absolute right but a right to be considered. They maintained that it is within the employer’s discretion to decide whether to fill vacant posts and that the court’s intervention in such matters should remain limited.

Justice Arindam Lodh, presiding over the case, observed the principle that promotion is not a guaranteed right but a right to be considered. The court stated: “True it is that, promotion is not a matter of right, but it is a right to be considered.”

The court examined whether the respondents’ decision to leave vacant posts unfilled complied with the obligations of a public employer. It noted that if vacancies exist, the employer is duty-bound to provide sufficient reasons for not filling them. The court recorded:
“If vacancy exists in any department under the Government or any other authority, and the same is not filled-up, then, it is the obligation of the employer to assign sufficient reason for not filling up the same.”

The court found that the petitioner’s eligibility for consideration was not disputed by the respondents. It observed that the petitioner had been serving in her current position for over a decade and had submitted a representation that remained unanswered. The court stated that the inaction of the respondents in processing the petitioner’s representation was unjustified and required immediate rectification.

The court relied on legal principles governing public employment and promotions. The court held that while the decision to promote is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised fairly and transparently, particularly when eligible candidates seek advancement.

The court observed that while the decision to promote is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised fairly and transparently, particularly when eligible candidates seek advancement. The court noted that the lack of a response to the petitioner’s representation reflected a failure to discharge the employer’s duty to act promptly and transparently.

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the Home Jail Department. The court instructed the respondents to process the petitioner’s case in accordance with the applicable service rules and complete the procedure within eight weeks.

The court’s order stated: “I direct the respondents to apply their judicious mind as regards consideration of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent under Home Jail Department, Government of Tripura, in accordance with rules.”

The court further directed that the respondents must communicate their decision to the petitioner promptly after completing the consideration process. To safeguard the petitioner’s rights, the court provided her with the liberty to approach the court again if she was aggrieved by the respondents’ decision. It stated: “The petitioner is given liberty to approach the court, if aggrieved by any order passed by the respondents.”

Case Title: Smt. Bela Datta v. The State of Tripura and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 826 of 2024
Bench: Justice Arindam Lodh

[Read/Download order]