For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. GA.
Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Also heard Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A.
appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. Raju Datta, learned
15.4.1988 under Tripura State Rifles (for short, TSR). By the passage of
last promotion to the post of Subedar on 13.8.2012. Their next
(for short, the Rules), now is the post of TPS, Grade-II. The relevant
(3) Minimum educational qualification for promotion to Grade-II of the
service shall be Graduation.
(4) The Committee shall not consider the cases of the officers in the
feeder posts who have attained the age of 53 years on the 1 st day of
January of the year in which the Committee meets."
[3] As per the said Rules, the highest age limit as prescribed for
promotion to the post of TPS, Grade-II was earlier 53 years. However,
vide 14th Amendment of the Tripura Police Service Rules, 2013, the
upper age limit for such promotion has been made 55 years from 53
years. Rule 34 further empowers the State Government to relax any
provisions of these Rules with respect to any class or category of
persons or posts after consultation with the Tripura Public Service
Commission (TPSC). The relevant Rule 34 is extracted hereunder for
useful reference :
"Rule 34. Power to relax:- Where the State Government is of the
opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may by order, for
reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the
Commission, relax any of the provisions off these rules with respect of
any class or category of persons or posts."
[4] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel referring to a
judgment dated 27.8.2021, passed by a coordinate bench of this Court
in the case of Sri Pritish Bhattacharjee & 26 others vs. The State
of Tripura & 4 Ors., [WP(C) No.582 of 2021], submits that earlier
similarly situated persons of Inspector rank, who were not getting
promotion, as the department was not taking up such promotional
exercise for certain grounds for a long period, filed the said writ petition
after crossing their 55 years of age limit with a prayer for relaxing their
age bar by invoking the provisions of said Rule 34. This Court,
thereafter, hearing the parties in the said judgment directed the
petitioners to submit a common representation to the Government of
Tripura, particularly, the Secretary, General Administration (P&T) and
the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tripura, to consider
their promotion to the post of TPS, Grade-II by invoking said Rule 34 of
the Rules, 1967 for relaxation of age of 55 years, as a one-time
measure. It was further directed that the petitioners should submit
representation before the authorities concerned within a period of 4
(four) days from the date of judgment and the competent authorities of
the government were directed to consider the representation within next
7 (seven) days and to dispose of the same by a speaking order. It was
however made clear in the judgment that the said order will be confined
only to the petitioners of said writ petition.
[5] According to Mr. Barman, learned senior counsel, thereafter,
all the said petitioners submitted representations before the competent
authority of the State Government but such representations were
rejected by the authority vide order dated 8.9.2021. Thereafter, being
aggrieved thereby, those petitioners again filed another writ petition
bearing WP(C) No.670 of 2021.
[6] The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated
9.1.2023, by a bench of this Court with the following observations and
directions :
"37. In the light of above analysis and discussions on the subject, in my
considered view, the present case is an appropriate and fit case to
invoke the provision as enshrined under Rule 34 of TPS Rules relaxing
the age bar of the petitioners for consideration of their promotions to
higher post, i.e. TPS Grade-II to obviate the hardship caused to the
senior most Inspectors of police.
38. Accordingly, I am constrained to direct the respondents to relax
the age bar of the petitioners for consideration of their promotions to
the next higher rank i.e. TPS Grade-II.
The entire exercise of promotion of the eligible officers shall be
completed within a period of 3(three) weeks from today. Needless to
say, this judgment will be applicable to all the eligible senior police
Inspectors.
39. As a sequel, the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 issued by the
Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura stands set aside and
quashed.
With the above observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands allowed and thus disposed of."
[7] Learned senior counsel submits that the present petitioners
have also completed 55 years of age but their cases were not taken into
consideration by the department invoking provisions of Rule 34 of said
Rules of 1967, though they were similarly situated persons. Learned
senior counsel also submits that both the present petitioners submitted
representations to the competent authority of the department, but till
date, their representations remain undisposed, however, recently the
petitioners could learn that the department is going to convene a DPC
meeting for such promotional exercise again, and therefore, the present
writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :
"(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to
show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof,
shall not be issued, mandating/directing them, to consider the
Petitioners for promotion to the posts of TPS, Grade-II, by granting
age-relaxation, in exercise of „power to relax‟, as conferred under Rule
34 of the Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967, by relaxing the age criteria
as laid down under Rule 14(4) thereof;
(ii) In the Ad-Interim, and after hearing the parties, in the Interim, an
Order/Direction, restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the
DPC, for promotion to TPS, Grade-II from the feeder posts (i.e.,
Subedar, TSR), till the decision for exercising „power to relax‟ under
Rule 34 of the Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967 is taken for relaxing
the age criteria for promotion to TPS, Grade-II from Subedars, TSR, or,
during the pendency of this Writ Petition;
(iii) Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ Petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute in
terms of (i) & (ii) above;
(v) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon‟ble High Court may deem fit and
proper;"
[8] According to learned senior counsel, the petitioners, being
similarly situated persons like the petitioners of above said writ petition
bearing WP(C) No.670 of 2021, necessary directions may be issued to
the respondents to relax the age bar in case of the present petitioners
by invoking Rule 34 of the said Rules, 1967.
[9] Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., on the other hand,
opposes the prayer of the petitioners mainly on two grounds:- firstly,
that earlier due to the pendency of Special Leave Petition before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing No.SLP(C) 19765-19767 of 2015,
wherein direction was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to maintain
'status-quo' by the parties, no promotional exercise was taken by the
State for a considerable period and when a policy decision was taken by
the State by formulating a promotional policy issued vide notification
dated 22.6.2021, such promotional exercise was done and vide
notification dated 9.12.2021, promotion was given to all eligible
candidates. The second ground, as agitated by Learned Addl. G.A., is
that the present petitioners were also within the zone of consideration
for promotion but due to absence of any vacant post they could not be
promoted.
[10] This Court has given due consideration to the submissions of
both parties and also has gone through the records. As extracted
hereinabove, in the said judgment passed by this Court on 9.1.2023 in
abovementioned WP(C) No.670 of 2021, direction was given by the
Court to complete such promotional exercise within a period of 3 (three)
weeks and it was further observed that the judgment would be
applicable to all the eligible senior Police Inspectors (emphasis laid). In
the present case, the present petitioners are though not of the cadre of
Inspectors of Police, rather they belong to the category of Subedars of
TSR, but as per Rule 5(1)(b) of the said Rules, the feeder posts for
promotion to the post of TPS, Grade II are the Inspectors of Police and
the Subedars of TSR both, and therefore, for such promotional exercise,
they are similarly situated category of persons like Inspectors of Police
and therefore they are required to be treated in similar manner. Record
shows that after the said judgment dated 9.1.2023 was passed by this
Court, the department, in compliance thereof, processed the matter of
promotion to the post of TPS, Grade-II and promoted some of the
petitioners of said case vide notification dated 25.7.2023 (Annexure 9 to
the writ petition). It is not disputed by the parties that said notification
was issued in compliance with the above said judgment of the Court by
relaxing the upper age limit in case of those petitioners under Rule 34 of
the Rules, 1967.
[11] As per the counter affidavit submitted by the State-
respondents, after the promotional policy was framed by the State on
22.6.2021, the present petitioners also came into the zone of
consideration but their names could not be recommended by the
selection committee due to non-availability of UR posts. Such assertions
necessarily indicate that such promotional exercise done by them,
culminated into publication of notification dated 9.12.2021 (Annexure 5
to the writ petition), whereby promotion was given to many other
Inspectors of Police and Subedars of TSR after such promotional policy
was framed by the State Government. However, nothing is placed to
show that after the judgment passed on 9.1.2023, any such benefit was
provided to the present petitioners as was given to other Police
Inspectors who got promotion on 25.7.2023.
[12] As indicated in the seniority list of Subedars (Annexure-4 to
the writ petition), the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 25.9.1966 and
the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 12.9.1967, which means when said
promotional notification dated 25.7.2023 was issued, they already
crossed the age of 55 years. However, the benefit of relaxation under
Rule 34 was not provided to them like the Inspectors, atleast there is no
such contra claim of the respondents in this regard that benefit of such
relaxation was extended to them too. Therefore, such treatment
appears to be discriminatory in nature. The petitioners ought to have
been given such benefit of relaxation like the Inspectors of Police.
[13] Though it is submitted from the side of the petitioners that
they have their information that the DPC meeting is likely to be held by
the concerned department recently however no material is placed on
record in this regard to assume so. On the contrary, it is also found that
both the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 submitted their respective
representations to the Director General of Police, respectively, dated
1.5.2024 and another dated nil, seeking such age relaxation and same
were also duly forwarded to Assistant Inspector General of Police (Estt.),
PHQ, Tripura but said representations appear to be still un-responded.
[14] Considering all these aspects and also in view of the
discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following direction(s) :
Whenever the next DPC will be convened by the department
for the promotional exercise to the post of TPS, Grade-II from the
feeder posts of Subedar, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall consider
and dispose of the above said representations of both the petitioners
before such promotional exercise is completed, keeping in mind the
applicability of Rule 34 of the Rules, 1967, the judgment dated 9.1.2023
passed by this Court in WP(C) No.670 of 2021 and also the observations
made by this Court in this judgment.
With such observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABD Digitally signed by
SATABDI DUTTA
I DUTTA 16:04:20 +05'30'
Date: 2025.04.30
Dinashree
