[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tripura (To Be Represented ... on 10 December, 2025
Page 1 of 19
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.45 of 2023
1. Sri Jatindra Das, (age- 49 years) S/o Lt. Gadadhar Das, resident of
Baishgharia, P.O. Teliamura-799205, P.S.-Teliamura, District-Khowai,
Tripura, (Inspector of Police (UB))
2. Sri Rakhal Mitra, (age- 48 years) S/o Sri Jagadish Mitra, resident of
Abhoynagar, P.O. Nalua-799156, P.S. Belonia, District- South Tripura,
(Inspector of Police (UB))
3. Sri Subrata Barman, (age- 45 years) S/o Sri Ashutosh Barman, resident of
Thakurpara, Melaghar, P.O and P.S. Melaghar, District- Sepahijala, Tripura,
Pin- 799115, (Inspector of Police (UB))
4. Sri Babul Das, (age- 45 years) S/o Sri Judhisthir Das, resident of Shanmura,
P.O. Lankamura-799009, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura,
(Inspector of Police (UB))
5. Sri Sukanta Das, (age-54 years) S/o Lt. Ramesh Chandra Das, resident of
Chandanmura, P.O. Battali-799115, P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala,
Tripura, (Inspector of Police)
6. Sri Nayanmani Namasudra, (age- 46 years) S/o Lt. Gunamani Namasudra,
resident of West Dalucherra, P.O. Jayanti Bazaar, P.S. Salema, District-
Dhalai, Tripura, (Inspector of Police (UB))
7. Sri Paritosh Das, (age- 47 years) S/o late Prafulla Chandra Das, resident of
Laltila, P.O. Moharchara-799203, P.S. Teliamura, District- Khowai, Tripura,
(Inspector of Police (UB)).
8. Sri Anupam Das, (age- 44 years) S/o Sri Balaram Das, resident of
Ramnagar Road No.2 end, P.O. Ramnagar-799002, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West, (Inspector of Police (UB))
9. Sri Arunodaya Das, (age-53 years), S/o Lt. Jugendra Chandra Das, resident
of Mulanchakra Road No.1, P.O. A.D. Nagar-799003, P.S. A.D. Nagar,
District- West Tripura, (Inspector of Police (UB))
10. Sri Ratan Mani Debbarma, (age- 47 years) S/o. Sri Uday Debbarma,
resident of Khutamura, P.O. Birendranagar- 799045, P.S. Radhapur, District-
West Tripura (Inspector of Police (UB))
11. Sri Amendra Debbarma, (age- 45 years) S/o Lt. Chandra Kumar
Debbarma, resident of Bhakta Das Para, P.O. Uttar Maharani Pur- 799205,
P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura, (Inspector of Police (UB))
12. Sri Sanjit Debbarma, (age- 49 years) S/o Lt. Adhir Debbarma, resident of
Amntali, P.O. Brajapur-799102, P.S. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala, Tripura,
(Inspector of Police (UB))
13. Sri Jubaraj Chakma, (age- 48 years) S/o Lt. Sundar Mohan Chakma,
resident of Hazachari, P.O. Suknachari-799104, P.S. Silachari, District-
Gomati, Tripura, (Inspector of Police (AB))
Page 2 of 19
14. Sri Ashok Debbarma, (age- 49 years) S/o Lt. Gopal Debbarma, resident of
Peratia, P.O. A.R. Para-799102, P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District- Gomati,
Tripura, (Inspector of Police (AB))
15. Sri Pramode Debbarma, (age- 44 years), S/o Lt. Bijoy Debbarma, resident
of Basanta Sardar Para, P.O. Uttar Dash Garia, P.S. Sidhai, District- West
Tripura, (Inspector of Police (UB))
16. Sri Bikan Debbarma, (age- 44 years) S/o Lt. Bharat Chandra Debbarma,
resident of Rasupara, P.O. Champaknagar, P.S. Jirania, District- West Tripura,
(Inspector of Police (UB))
.........Appellant(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura (To be represented by the Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Tripura), New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN- 799010.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, A.K Road,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN- 799001.
3. The Principal Secretary, GA (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.- New
Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799010
4. The Inspector General of Police (Administration), O/o the Director General
of Police, Government of Tripura, A.K Road, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-
799001.
5. Tripura Public Service Commission to be represented by its Secretary,
Government of Tripura, A.K Road, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
6. Smt. Ila Deb, W/o Sri Habul Sarkar of Badharghat near BOC, P.S. Amtali,
Agartala, West Tripura.
7. Sri Sourav Dasgupta, S/o Lt Santosh Lal Dasgupta of Ramnagar Road No.4,
P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.
8. Sri Partha Sarathi Paul, S/o. Lt. Ashutosh Paul of Palace Compound, near
Sale Tax Office, P.S.- East Agartala, West Tripura.
9. Sri Pranab Sengupta, S/o Lt. Tegendranath Sengupta of Office Tilla Nutan
Palli, P.S. Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District.
10. Sri Rathindra Ch. Ghosh, S/o Lt. Nibaran Chandra Ghosh of A.D. Nagar
Police Quarters Complex, P.S. A.D. Nagar, West Tripura.
11. Sri Dhiraj Laskar, S/o Lt. Manindra Chandra Laskar of Police Quarter
Lane, P.S. A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura.
12. Sri Pradyut Ch. Datta, S/o Sri Pramesh Ch. Datta of Natun Palli, P.S.
Dharmanagar, North Tripura.
13. Sri Swapan Ch. Das, S/o Lt. Kshitish Chandra Das of Gajaria S.D
Mission, P.S. A.D. Nagar, Agartala West Tripura.
14. Sri Benu Lal Kar, S/o Lt. Shital Chandra Kar of Ramnagar Road No.4
(Near Sankar Chowmuhani), P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.
Page 3 of 19
15. Sri Debashish Banerjee, S/o Lt. Debabrata Banerjee of Krishnanagar,
Kadamtali, P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.
16. Sri Shyamal Chakraborty, S/o Lt. Haran Chakraborty of A.D. Nagar Road
No.1, P.S. A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura.
17. Sri Kamal Kar Chowdhury, S/o Lt. Naresh Kar Chowdhury of Ramnagar
Road No.2, P.S. West Agartala, Agartala, West Tripura.
18. Sri Ranendu Kishore Bhattacharjee, S/o Lt. Rabindra Kumar
Bhattacharjee, 1/A By- Lane Srinagar, Milanchakra, P.S. A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.
19. Sri Kapil Das, S/o Lt. Krishna Mohan Das of Badharghat (Matripalli), P.S.
A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura
20. Sri Paloram Das, S/o Lt. Sudhan Chandra Das of Beltali, A.D. Nagar,
Road No.9, P.S. A.D. Nagar, West Tripura.
21. Sri Anup Kumar Das, S/o Lt. Amarendra Das of Town Rajarbag, PS-R.K.
Pur, Gomati District.
22. Sri Priti Ranjan Laskar, S/o Lt. Rati Ranjan Laskar of Dhaleswar Road
No.14, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.
23. Md. Abdul Matin, S/o Lt. Habib Ali of Jamirala College Road, P.S.
Dharmanagar, Dharmanagar, North Tripura.
24. Sri Kanti Lal Baidya, S/o Lt. Anil Chandra Baidya of Kalyani, P.S. East
Agartala, Agartala, West Tripura.
25. Sri Ratan Kumar Deb, S/o Lt. Haripada Deb of Ramnagar, A.K Road, P.S.
West Agartala, West Tripura.
26. Sri Balaram Sen, S/o Lt. Ashutosh Sen of Shyamalima Apartment, Flat
No.4/10 Block- 4, Near ILS Hospital, PS- New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura.
27. Sri Subrata Chakraborty, S/o Lt. Sudhir Bandhu Chakraborty of Haneman
Homeo Hall, 91 Motor Stand Road, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.
.........Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, Advocate General,
Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Date of hearing : 18.11.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 10.12.2025
Whether Fit for Reporting : YES
Page 4 of 19
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
1) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the
judgment dt.09.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.670/2021.
2) The Appellants and the Respondents No.6 to 27 are employed as
Inspectors of Police in the Tripura Police Service under the control of
respondents No.1- 4.
3) The issue in this Appeal relates to promotion to the post of
Tripura Police Service Grade-II (for short "TPS Grade-II") from the post of
Inspector of Police.
Relevant provisions of the Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967
4) Rule 3 of the Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967 (for short „the
Rules‟) provides that the Tripura Police Service shall consist of Grade-I
(Selection Grade) and Grade II posts.
5) Rule 5 of the Rules provides for appointment to the Tripura
Police Service by direct recruitment (50%) and promotion (other 50%)
through a Selection process.
6) Rule 13 provides for constitution of a Selection Committee.
7) Rule 14 mentions the conditions of eligibility and procedure for
selection. It states:
"14.Conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection:
(1) The Committee shall consider from time to time, the
cases of officers eligible under clause (b) of sub-Rule (1) of
Rule 5, who have served in the cadre of Inspectors of Police
and Subedars of Tripura State Rifles battalion for not less than
5 years, and prepare a list of officers recommended taking into
Page 5 of 19
account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those
likely to occur during a year. The selection for inclusion in the
list shall be on merit and suitability in all respects for
appointment to the service with due regard to seniority.
(2) The names of persons included in the list shall be
arranged in order of merit and forwarded to the State
government.
(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 1st day of January of the year in which the
Committee meets."
8) Rule 34 of the Rules deals with the power to relax the Rules. It
states:
"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 of these Rules with
respect of any class or category of persons or posts."
W.P.(C) No.582 of 2021 and the judgment dt.27.8.2021 passed therein
9) Some of the private respondents filed W.P.(C) No.582 of 2021 in
this High Court contending that they were eligible for promotion to the post of
TPS Grade-II but had crossed the prescribed age of 55 years on 1.1.2021; that
they had given representations to the Director General of Police, Govt. of
Tripura on 7.7.2021 to consider their promotion to the rank of TPS Grade-II
seeking relaxation of the age bar prescribed in Rule 14(4) of the Rules; that
after 2013, the respondents No.1-4 could not do any exercise for promotion to
Page 6 of 19
the TPS Grade-II due to interim order passed by the Supreme Court in a
pending matter; that the Director General of Police had considered the said
representations and by a communication dt.8.7.2021 addressed to the Principal
Secretary, General Administration (P&T), Govt. of Tripura proposed to
consider one-time relaxation of age criteria as per Rule 14(4) of the Rules; but
the respondent No.1 had not accepted the same.
10) The Advocate General, appearing for the State Government
contended in that Writ Petition that the petitioners in that Writ Petition had not
submitted any representation to the State Government regarding their
grievance and had straightaway filed the Writ Petition and it is premature.
11) The learned Single Judge then disposed of the said W.P.(C)
No.582 of 2021 on 27.8.2021 directing the petitioners in the said Writ Petition
to submit representations to the State Government seeking such relaxation
under Rule 35 of the age requirement prescribed under Rule 14(4) of the Rules
and directed the respondents to consider the same in 7 days and also further
directed the respondents not to proceed further with the process of promotion
initiated under the notification dt.18.8.2021.
12) Thereafter the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.582 of 2021 gave a
representation dt.30.8.2021 to the Secretary, Home Department contending
that due to no fault of theirs, they had become age barred and in such a
situation, relaxation of age criteria should be done keeping in view the letter
dt.8.7.2021 issued by the Office of the Director General of Police to the
Principal Secretary, General Administration (P&T) Department quoting earlier
instances of grant of such age relaxation by invoking Rule 34 of the Rules.
Page 7 of 19
13) The said representation dt.30.8.2021 was however rejected on
8.9.2021 by the Principal Secretary, General Administration (P&T)
Department (respondent No.3).
The order dt.8.9.2021 of the Principal Secretary, General Administration
(P&T) Department
14) The following reasons were given in his order dt.8.9.2021 by the
Principal Secretary, General Administration (P&T) Department for rejecting
the representation of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.582 of 2021:
(i) Certain promotions had been granted to the post of TPS
Gr-II in 2007 and 2010 by relaxing the eligibility criteria of age, educational
qualification and tenure period of service. Challenging the said relaxation
granted in the year 2010, some Inspectors of Police and Subedars of TSR
Battalions had filed Writ Petitions in the High Court.
As per judgment of this Court pronounced on 01.02.2021,
thirteen Inspectors of Police and seven Subedars of the TSR battalions who
were allowed promotion in 2013 with the relaxation, and had to be reverted
back to their substantive feeder post of Inspector of Police/Subedars of TSR
Battalions; those who were reverted had approached the Supreme Court by
filing an SLP; and on 29.06.2021, the Supreme Court had stayed the
reversion.
(ii) There might be many people who had already retired from
Government service without getting benefit of promotion, since promotion of
State Government employees had remained withheld for long time due to the
pendency of the SLP in the Supreme Court, and if the promotion is considered
by relaxing the age in favour of the above retired persons, then those who
Page 8 of 19
have already retired from service without getting benefit of promotion, may
prefer claim for promotion by seeking relaxation of age.
(iii) It was stated that if the relaxation of the age is being
considered in favour of the persons making the representation (respondents
No.6 to 27), then other incumbents concerned who are in the feeder post of
TCS/TFS etc. may also prefer claim for relaxation of age; and those who are
currently eligible to be considered for promotion as per existing rules, may be
deprived of promotion, and this would create administrative inconvenience.
(iv) It was stated that as per Rule 14(4) of the TPS Rules, 1967
and the TPS 14th Amendment Rules, 2013, there was no provision for
relaxation of age for promotion to the post of TPS Gr-II from the feeder post
of Inspectors of Police, and so the claim of respondents No.6 to 27 for
relaxation of age, is not justified, and cannot be considered.
(v) It was also stated that as per a Promotion Policy notified
on 22.06.2021 to fill up vacant posts by making promotions on ad-hoc basis,
there is no provision allowing age relaxation.
W.P.(C) no. 670 of 2021 and the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge
15) The respondents No.6 to 27 had filed the W.P.(C) No.670 of
2021 against the respondents No.1 to 5 challenging the order dt.08.09.2021 of
the Principal Secretary, General Administration (P&T) Department rejecting
representations dt.30.08.2021 submitted by them to the Home Department.
16) By judgment dt.09.01.2023, learned Single Judge allowed the
said W.P.(C) No.670 of 2021.
Page 9 of 19
17) He noted that previously respondents No.6 to 27 had filed a Writ
Petition being WP(C) No.582/2021 before this Court, and the said Writ
Petition had been disposed of on 27.08.2021 directing respondents No.1 to 5
to consider the representation of the said persons, but the same had been
rejected.
18) The learned Single Judge then referred to Rule 14(4) of the TPS
Rules, 1967 which specifically directed the Committee which considers
promotions to positions in the Tripura Police Service, to not consider cases of
officers in the feeder posts who have attained the age of 55 years on the first
day of January of the year in which the Committee meets, and also Rule 34
which confers on the State Government „Power to relax‟, and held that he did
not find any logical ground for non-consideration of the promotion of the
respondents No.6 to 27 to TPS Grade-II posts.
19) He also observed that the respondents No.1 to 5 had not taken
into account the fact that a status quo order had been passed by the Supreme
Court in regard to promotion of State Government employees because of
which the State Government had not been making promotions, and they are
making promotions as per the policy decision taken by it on 22.06.2021 by
promoting persons on ad-hoc basis to augment efficiency in administration.
He held that since the promotion of the respondents could not be considered
due to the order passed by the Supreme Court, and not because of any fault on
their part, and since the Inspector General of Police of Tripura on 08.07.2021,
had recommended their promotion by invoking Rule 34 of the Rules, and
since he is the best person to know the interest of the State in protecting the
Page 10 of 19
discipline of the Police Administration, the request for relaxation of age
should have been accepted by the respondents No.1 to 5.
20) He further observed that the stand taken in the impugned
rejection order by the respondents No.1 to 5 that if senior officers are
promoted then junior officers may raise their claim, and there may be legal
complications in future, is not in consonance with the object of the legislation;
that the respondents No.6 to 27, being senior most eligible police officers for
promotions to the post of TPS Gr-II, had a legitimate expectation of fair
treatment in their service career, and any infringement would form the basis of
judicial review. According to him, the Rule of Equity does not suggest that
junior officers can claim advantage over senior officers, and if senior officers
are promoted, junior officers cannot have any grievance, and the apprehension
of the respondents No.1 to 5 that junior officers may be deprived of
promotion, has no substance at all.
21) He therefore held that the State Government‟s decision in
rejecting the request of the respondents No.6 to 27 for relaxation was
unrealistic, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
22) He also held that in his opinion, if in appropriate cases the
respondents No.1 to 5 failed to address the object of the legislation, then the
power to relax Rule would be frustrated, and so the Court has to step in to
protect the hardship caused by the action of the respondents No.1 to 5 in not
exercising the power of relaxation to remedy the injustice caused to
employees.
Page 11 of 19
23) Certain decisions of the Supreme Court were also quoted by the
learned Single Judge as to the exercise of power of relaxation in service rules.
24) He then directed the respondents No.1 to 5 to relax the age bar of
respondents No.6 to 27 for consideration of their promotion to the next higher
rank of TPS Gr-II, and directed the entire process to be completed within three
weeks by setting aside the order dt. 08.09.2021 of the third respondent.
The instant Writ Appeal
25) The appellants then filed the instant Writ Appeal, and sought
leave to file the said appeal in IA No.02/2023 contending that they are likely
to be affected if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is implemented.
They also filed IA No.01/2023 for condoning the delay of 88 days in
preferring the appeal.
26) By common order dt.09.07.2024, IA No.01/2023 and IA
No.02/2023 were both allowed. The appeal was then admitted on 23.07.2024.
Consideration by the Court
27) The contention of the counsel for the appellants is that in the very
same Tripura Police Service, there are direct judgments of a Division Bench
of the Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) in the case of State of Tripura &
others v. Raju Ghosh1 (Judgment dt.02.03.2013 in WA No.23, 32 & 33 of
2012) setting out the manner in which the power of relaxation is to be
exercised while affecting promotions under the TPS Rules, 1967 which was
also followed in the judgment dt.24.05.2019 in Raju Ghosh and others v.
1
2013 Supreme (Gau) 120 = 2013 LIC 2054 = 2013 2 GauLD 801
Page 12 of 19
State of Tripura and others2 by learned Single Judge of this High Court (who
is also the Judge who passed the impugned judgment).
28) They alleged that the attention of the learned Single Judge was
not drawn either by respondents No.6 to 27, or by respondents No.1 to 5 to
both these judgments, though they are fully aware of them. They further
contended that since the learned Single Judge himself in Raju Ghosh (2
Supra) referred to above followed the Division Bench judgment in Raju
Ghosh (1 Supra), he could not have given directions in the impugned
judgment contrary to the judgment in Raju Ghosh (1), and contrary to his own
decision in Raju Ghosh (2).
29) In the judgment in Raju Ghosh (1), the Division Bench upheld
the decision of the Single Judge that relaxation of educational qualification,
experience and age limit under Rule 34 can be done only when the
Government is not in a position to fill up vacancies. But if there are persons
eligible for consideration of promotion to TPS Gr-II, even prior to grant of
such relaxation under Rule 34, their cases must be considered, and then, if
there are still vacancies which remain, then cases of others can be considered
for promotion after giving the relaxation. It held as under:
" 69. On proper scrutiny of the Second Proviso to Rule 5, it
appears that the government/authority has the power to
consider the case of either the group of Subedar or Inspector
of Police in the feeder post for filling up the vacancies arising
against the promotion quota when the members of either of the
group are not available due to non-eligibility and the said
aspect was also not placed before the Council of Ministers. As
a result, the Council of Ministers did not get opportunity to
2
Judgment dt.24.5.2019 in W.P.(C).No.157 of 2013 and batch ( Justice Arindham Lodh) (Tripura High
court)
Page 13 of 19
consider that aspect. Had they been informed then they might
not have agreed to the proposal for relaxation as for the feeder
post of Subedar for whom 36% quota is earmarked. As a
result, the Council of Ministers did not get any opportunity to
take a conscious decision and acted only on the proposal for
relaxation made in memorandum dated 19th February, 2010
upon which the impugned notification dated 9 th March, 2010
was issued.
70. Learned Single Judge admittedly did not interfere with the
impugned memorandum wherein the proposal for relaxation
was made and the notification dt.9th March 2010, and accepted
the contention that the Government has the power of
relaxation of any rule including the condition of recruitment
like educational qualification, experience and the age limit
exercising the power vested on it under Rule 34, particularly
when the government is not in a position to fill up the
vacancies, but at the same time, learned single judge also
considered that though the writ petitioners were eligible for
consideration of promotion to TPS Grade-II even prior to
relaxation of the rules, their cases were not considered even
though the vacancies were available, and the Council of
Ministers were admittedly not informed regarding the
availability of Subedars for filling up the posts of TPS Grade-
II within the quota fixed for them and if received such an
information , the Council of ministers might not have approved
the proposal for relaxation of qualification at that stage and
the cases of the petitioners could have been considered for
filling up within their respective quota in terms of second
proviso to Rule 5 before relaxation. Taking note of the said
aspect learned single Judge directed for considering the cases
of the petitioner first and then go for considering the cases of
others who became eligible after relaxation.
Page 14 of 19
71. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
direction of the learned Single Judge for considering the case
of the petitioners, at the first instance, depriving the others
who became eligible after relaxation, created a separate class
within the class, as contended by Mr. Gupta, cannot be
accepted as the petitioners themselves are a class as they have
earned their eligibility for consideration prior to relaxation of
the rules. Thus, the direction of the learned Single Judge is
neither unreasonable nor perverse and even not in disregard
of any established principle of law. Hence, we are reluctant to
interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Appeals preferred by the State are dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
30) As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellants, this
decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Raju Ghosh (1)
having been followed by the learned Single Judge (who passed the impugned
judgment) in his judgment Raju Ghosh (2) (judgment dt.24.05.2019 in
WP(C) 157/2013).
31) In Raju Ghosh (2), the learned single Judge held:
"17. To sum up, the learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the then Gauhati High Court in their
respective judgments criticised the role of the proposal makers
and indicated that the Council of Ministers was misinformed
and thus was misdirected in approving the said proposal of the
concerned respondents. The said judgment and orders are also
specific that in filling up the 51 vacancies of TPS Grade-II
posts, the State-respondents are to first consider the case of
the petitioners being they were/are eligible candidates in all
respects, without any relaxation thereof and it is only after
consideration of the case of the petitioners and in the event of
non-availability of the eligible Inspector of police/Subedars of
Page 15 of 19
TSR, in the exigencies of public service, the vacancies may be
filled up, either by the Inspector of Police/Subedars of TSR,
after exceeding their respective proportion of vacancies, by
invoking the power of relaxation, as contained in the Rule 34
of the TPS Rules.
......
27. In the light of above submissions and discussions, I have
revisited the relevant notifications wherein the number of
vacancies are notified which according to me is very specific
to 51 posts of TPS Grade-II officers and looking back to the
order, I further fortify that the notifications only are confined
to the said 51 posts and filling up of the said 51 posts would be
made after first considering the eligible officers on the basis of
their respective merits prescribed in Rule 14 of the TPS Rules
and only on non-availability of eligible officers either from the
Inspectors of Police or Subedars, the relaxation clause under
Rule 34 of the TPS Rules would be invoked. According to me,
if the number of eligible officers in the post of Inspector of
Police does not come within the ambit of eligibility criteria,
then the said number of posts can be filled up from the eligible
officers holding the posts of Subedars of TSR by way of
interchanging and vice versa in terms of the second proviso to
Rule 5 of the TPS Rules."
(emphasis supplied)
32) In our opinion, having regard to the above decisions binding on
the respondents and this Court, it was incumbent on the respondents to have
brought both these decisions to the notice of the learned Single Judge, when
the learned Single Judge was hearing WP(C) No.670/2021 out of which this
appeal arises.
33) When questioned about their omission to do so, no satisfactory
answer is forthcoming from counsel for respondents (the State as well as the
private respondents) as to why they suppressed before the learned Single
Judge the Division Bench judgment in Raju Ghosh (1) as well as his own
judgment in Raju Ghosh (2).
34) We are constrained to observe that this conduct on part of the
respondents is unfair, and they cannot take advantage of the absence of the
appellants before the learned Single Judge, and seek to get, and also get a
favourable order contrary to the above two decisions.
35) The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment finding fault with the rejection order dt.08.09.2021 passed by the
third respondent cannot also be sustained because the opinion of the Inspector
General of Police relied upon by him itself runs contrary to the principles laid
down in the case of Raju Ghosh (1) and Raju Ghosh (2), which the IGP is
expected to know and follow, and which he did not do in his recommendation.
36) In Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir3 , State
of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar4,J.C.Yadav v. State of
Haryana5and Sandeep Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab6 cited by the
learned Single Judge, the relaxation already granted by the State was in
question. They are not cases where the High Court had issued any Mandamus
to the State to grant relaxation of age or educational qualification or
experience.
37) It is trite that a Writ of Mandamus can be issued by the High
Court where there is in existence an enforceable right and also a
corresponding obligation. (Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of
(1998) 4 SCC 179
1989 Supp (1)SCC 393
(19900 2 SCC 189
(1997) 10 SCC 298
Orissa7). The respondents No.6 to 27 have not been able to show any such
right conferred on them to get relaxation of age or a corresponding obligation
on the State to be able to seek a Writ of Mandamus.
38) That apart Rule 34 as stated above states:
"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 of these Rules with
respect of any class or category of persons or posts."
39) By use of the word „may‟, it is clear that the State Government is
conferred with the discretion to relax the Rules where it thinks that it is
necessary and expedient to do so.
40) But where the State Government feels that it might result in
complications and chaos if such relaxation is granted, unless the reasons given
by it are perverse or irrational, Court ought not to interfere with its refusal to
exercise the discretion to relax the rules.
41) In the order dt.8.9.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary,
General Administration (P&T), mentioned supra, he had mentioned the
following two important reasons:
a) There might be many people who had already retired from
Government service without getting benefit of promotion, since promotion of
State Government employees had remained withheld for long time due to the
pendency of the SLP in the Supreme Court, and if the promotion is considered
by relaxing the age in favour of the above retired persons, then those who
(2014) 4 SCC 583
have already retired from service without getting benefit of promotion, may
prefer claim for promotion by seeking relaxation of age.
b) It was stated that if the relaxation of the age is being
considered in favour of the persons making the representation (respondents
No.6 to 27), then other incumbents concerned who are in the feeder post of
TCS/TFS etc. may also prefer claim for relaxation of age; and those who are
currently eligible to be considered for promotion as per existing rules, may be
deprived of promotion, and this would create administrative inconvenience.
42) These are reasons which cannot be termed as arbitrary or
unreasonable and could not be brushed aside lightly as the Single Judge has
done. The Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the doctrine of legitimate
expectation to grant relief to the private respondents.
43) In Rewa Tollway (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P8 the Supreme Court
explained the limited scope of „legitimate expectation‟ and held that it
primarily grants an applicant the right to a fair hearing before a decision that
negates a promise or withdraws an undertaking from which an expectation of
certain outcome or treatment arises. It does not, however, create an absolute
right to the expected outcome. The protection of legitimate expectation is
subject to overriding public interest, which means that even if an individual‟s
expectation is reasonable and based on a past practice or representation by the
executive or legislature, it can be denied if justified by a significant public
necessity. The Court also highlighted that in matters of policy change, the
judiciary typically refrains from interfering, unless the decision is arbitrary,
unreasonable, or not in public interest. It held that this balanced approach
(2024) 9 SCC 680, at page 692
ensures that while individuals can expect consistent treatment based on past
practices or promises, the Government retains the flexibility to respond to
evolving needs and priorities.
44) When possible administrative complications are offered as
justification for not exercising the discretion to grant age relaxation to private
respondents, the Court must not brush them aside particularly when they are
good reasons.
45) For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the judgment of the
learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
46) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment
dt.09.01.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.670/2021 is set aside;
any promotions made pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge in the
said Writ Petition are also set aside, and respondents No.6 to 27 shall be
reverted to the substantive post they were holding before they were promoted
to the post in TPS Gr-II pursuant to the impugned judgment. The respondents
No.1 to 5 shall then proceed to consider the cases of all eligible persons as per
Rule 14 of the TPS Rules, 1967 for promotion to the post of TPS Gr-II
officers without any age or other relaxation.
47) This exercise shall be done within 8(eight) weeks from today.
48) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2025.12.10 15:27:37 +05'30'
