[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Dr. Nazaru Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 15 December, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.127/2024
Dr. Nazaru Debbarma, S/o Sanjib Kr. Debbarma, R/o: Vill.-Bishrambari,
P.O.- NIT College, P.S.- Jirania, District-West Tripura, Age- 34 years.
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, (to be represented by the Principal Secretary, Health
& Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura), New Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.-New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 010.
2. The Under Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government
of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.-
New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 010.
3. The Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Tripura,
Bidurkarta Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001.
4. The I/C, Director of Medical Education, Government of Tripura, Bidurkarta
Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001.
5. Dr. Chandan Kumar Tripura, M.S (ST) [Sl. No.-15 of Notification, dated,
27.06.2024, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Health & Family
Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura]
(Notice upon the Respondent No.-5 be served through the O/o the Directorate
of Medical Education, Government of Tripura, Bidurkarta Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001)
6. The Secretary, General Administration (Personnel and Training),
Government of Tripura.
......... Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General,
Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Ms. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate,
Mr. Elembrok Debbarma, Advocate
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Date of hearing & judgment : 15.12.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
Page 2 of 5
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dt. 03.10.2024
of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.452 of 2024.
2. The appellant had filed this Writ Petition challenging the
absorption of the 5th respondent to the post of Basic Teacher in the discipline
of General Surgery in terms of an advertisement dt. 11.02.2022 filed as
Annexure-1 in the Writ Petition.
3. 3 (three) posts of Basic Teacher in the discipline of General
Surgery were vacant at that point of time which had to be filled up by
absorption. Out of these 3 (three) posts, one post was reserved for Unreserved
category, one for Scheduled Tribe and one for Scheduled Caste. The
advertisement stipulated that absorption will be made on the basis of Seniority
in marks.
4. For the Scheduled Tribe category only the appellant and the 5th
respondent under consideration. The 5th respondent secured 53.97 API score
while the appellant who was junior to the 5th respondent got 53.6 API score.
5. The appellant contended in the Writ Petition before the learned
Single Judge in the Writ Petition that the 5th respondent had already been
promoted as Grade-II Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis and so his selection and
absorption as Basic Teacher in the discipline of General Surgery is illegal
because the Tripura Government Medical Education (Administrative &
Faculty) Services Conditions Rules, 2015 dt. 04.08.2015 required that only
persons in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts were eligible for absorption as a
Basic Teacher and the 5th respondent was therefore not eligible.
6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment rejected his
plea and held that the 5th respondent had been given only an ad-hoc promotion
to Grade-II post on 31.12.2021; an ad-hoc appointment or promotion to a post
was merely a stop-gap arrangement to meet certain administrative exigencies;
and an ad-hoc appointee cannot be said to be holder of the post on permanent
or regular basis. He also held that as per the policy framed by the State
Government on 22.06.2021 for promotions, such promotions would only be
on ad-hoc basis and since the 5th respondent‟s promotion to the Grade-II post
was not on a permanent basis, he is eligible because he secured more API
score than the appellant and so he should be absorbed to the post of Basic
Teacher in the discipline of General Surgery against the ST category.
7. Challenging the same this appeal is filed.
8. On 01.04.2025 this appeal was admitted and on 11.09.2025 this
Court opined that prima facie the nomenclature of „ad-hoc‟ promotion used in
the order dt. 31.12.2021 promoting the 5th respondent to the Grade-II post is in
fact a regular promotion though subject to the result in the SLPs pending in
the Supreme Court in SLP(C). No.19765-19767 of 2015 relating to
implementation of reservation for SC and ST candidates; and the said
promotion cannot be termed as ad-hoc in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It was also opined prima facie that an ad-hoc promotion cannot continue
for long periods (such as exceeding 2 years in the instant case) and is normally
only a short term stop gap arrangement; and consequently, the respondent
No.5 was not eligible for being considered for absorption as Basic Teacher as
per the 2015 Rules.
9. Therefore, stay was granted of the proceedings dt. 27.06.2024
absorbing the respondent No.5 in the post of Basic Teacher until further order.
10. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification dt.
01.12.2025 modifying the Promotion Policy, 2021 dt.22.06.2021 stating as
under:
"Whereas, the Promotion Policy, 2021 has been carefully examined by
the Government and after due consideration, it has been decided to
modify the said Policy as follows:-
i) All promotions allowed as per the Promotion Policy, 2021
shall be treated as regular promotion with effect from the date
of ad-hoc promotion for the purpose of extending all service
and retiral benefits as per respective extant rules. Also, the
benefits of fixation/protection of pay, allowances, etc. after
such treatment, shall be provided to an employee entitled
otherwise, subject to the outcome of SLP© No. 19765-19767
of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
ii) All pensionary benefits, including leave encashment, shall
also be extended to employees on the last pay of the post from
which they have retired/will retire from service on
superannuation or otherwise, after availing ad-hoc promotion
subject to the outcome of the SLP© No. 19765-19767 of 2015
pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Also, if any employee
dies after availing ad-hoc promotion as per the Promotion
Policy, 2021, his/her legal heirs shall also be entitled to
pensionary benefits, including leave encashment etc. as
permissible, subject to the outcome of SLP© No. 19765-19767
of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
All Departments and Heads of Departments are therefore, requested to
take action accordingly."
11. In view of this change in the policy which came into effect on
01.12.2025, the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge no longer
survives because all promotions allowed as per the Promotion Policy, 2021
would be treated as regular promotion with effect from the date of such ad-hoc
promotion for the purpose of extending all service and retiral benefits as per
the respective extant rules.
12. Consequently, the promotion of the 5th respondent to the Grade-II
post made on 31.12.2021 has to be treated as regular promotion to the said
Grade-II post with effect from the said date itself.
13. Therefore, on the date of notification dt. 11.02.2022 issued for
filling up the post of Basic Teacher in the discipline of General Surgery, the
5th respondent does not have eligibility for being absorbed in the Basic
Teacher post since he was holding Grade-II post from 31.12.2021.
14. The contention of the counsel for the State that the 5 th respondent
has now written a letter offering to give up his promotion to the Grade-II post
which he was given on 31.12.2021 cannot be countenanced because, having
accepted the same and having enjoyed the promotion for almost three years, at
this belated stage, he cannot be allowed to give up the said promotion.
15. Consequently, the only eligible person for the post of Basic
Teacher in Scheduled Tribe category is the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is
allowed; the judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside; and the
respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to absorb the appellant in the Scheduled
Tribe vacant post of Basic Teacher within 2(two) weeks.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
MOUMITA Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.12.16 13:49:55
+05'30'
Moumita
