Tripura High Court
Smt. Satarupa Sengupta vs The State Of Tripura on 3 September, 2025
Page 1 of 11
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.122 of 2024
Smt. Satarupa Sengupta, Age-36 years, W/O. Sri Maharshi Debnath, Resident
of Payaribabur Bagan, Joynagar, Agartala, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, 799001.
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, General Administration
(Personnel & Training) Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, P.S.-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura.
2. The Secretary, General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, P.S.-New
Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. Tripura State Pollution Control Board, a statutory body, under the
Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Tripura,
represented by Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, Pandit Nehru Complex,
Gurkhabasti, P.O.-Kunjaban, P.S.-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division- Sadar,
District-West Tripura.
4. The Member Secretary, Tripura State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh
Bhawan, Pandit Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.-Kunjaban, P.S.-New
Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
5. Sri Prakash Paul, S/O. Sri Brajesh Chandra Paul, resident of Chandrapur,
P.O.-Reshambagan, P.S.-East Agartala, Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-
799008.
6. Sri Subrata Majumder, S/O. Lt. Chandan Majumder, resident of Town
Indranagar, P.O.-Dhaleswar, Sadar, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799007.
.........Respondent(s).
W.A. No.26 of 2025
Gautam Ghosh, Age-36 years, S/O. Lt. Santi Bhushan Ghosh, Resident of North
Charilam, P.O.-North Charilam, P.S.-Bishalgarh, District-Sepahijala, Tripura,
PIN-799103.
......... Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, General Administration
(Personnel & Training) Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, P.S.-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura.
2. The Secretary, General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, P.S.-New
Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. Tripura State Pollution Control Board, a statutory body, under the
Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Tripura,
Page 2 of 11
represented by Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, Pandit Nehru Complex,
Gurkhabasti, P.O.-Kunjaban, P.S.-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division- Sadar,
District-West Tripura.
4. The Member Secretary, Tripura State Pollution Control Board, Parivesh
Bhawan, Pandit Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.-Kunjaban, P.S.-New
Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
5. Sri Dipak Rudra Pal, S/O. Sri Subhas Chandra Rudra Pal, resident of South
Bank of Amarsagar, P.O. & P.S.-R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District-Gomati, Tripura,
PIN-799120.
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate,
Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate,
Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
CAV reserved on : 21.08.2025.
Judgment delivered on : 03.09.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
1) Heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, counsel appearing for the appellants,
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents-State, Mr. Ratan Datta, counsel appearing for respondents- Tripura
State Pollution Control Board, Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted
by Mr. Pannalal Debbarma, counsel and Mr. Kundan Pandey, counsel appearing
for the private respondents.
Page 3 of 11
2) In both these appeals, common questions of law and fact arise and
so they are being disposed of by this common order.
Background facts
3) An advertisement for filling up 4 (four) posts of Junior
Environmental Engineer and 4 (four) posts of Junior Scientist in the Tripura
State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") was
issued by the Board through notification dt. 06.05.2011.
4) The appellant in W.A.No.26 of 2025 and respondent No.5 therein
were called for interviews for post of Junior Scientist and they were selected but
appointment letters were issued to them giving them appointment on purely
temporary basis.
5) Likewise the appellant in W.A.No.122 of 2024 and respondents
No.5 and 6 therein were called for interviews for post of Junior Environmental
Engineer and they were selected but appointment letters were issued to them
giving them appointment on purely temporary basis.
WP(C) No.654 of 2023.
6) For the post of Junior Scientist, the Board issued a memorandum
on 27.12.2022 publishing a Draft Seniority List of Junior Scientists wherein the
respondent No.5 in W.A. No.26 of 2025 was placed at Sl. No.2 and the
appellant in the said Writ Appeal was placed at Sl.No.1.
7) Feeling aggrieved by his placement at Sl. No.2 of the Draft
Seniority List as was noted in the memorandum dt. 27.12.2022, the respondent
No.5 in W.A. No.26 of 2025 gave a representation on 24.01.2023, but the same
was ignored. On 19.09.2023, the Board issued another memorandum publishing
Final Seniority List of Junior Scientists confirming the Draft Seniority List dt.
27.12.2022.
8) Therefore, the respondent No.5 in W.A. No.26 of 2025 filed
WP(C) No.654 of 2023.
9) For the post of Junior Environmental Engineer (Group-B), another
memorandum dt. 27.12.2022 was issued by the Board publishing a Draft
Seniority List of Junior Environmental Engineers whereby the respondent No.5
in Writ Appeal No.122 of 2024 was placed at Sl. No.3 while the respondent
No.6 and the appellant in W.A. No.122 of 2024 were placed at Sl. No.1 and 2
respectively.
10) Aggrieved by his placement at Sl. No.3 of the Draft Seniority List
in the memorandum dt. 27.12.2022, the respondent No.5 in W.A. No.122 of
2024 gave a representation on 24.01.2023.
11) But ignoring the same, the Member Secretary of the Board issued a
memorandum on 19.09.2023 publishing the Final Seniority List of Junior
Environmental Engineers of the Board affirming the seniority position as
indicated in the memorandum dt. 27.12.2022.
12) The respondent No.5, therefore, filed WP(C) No.655 of 2023.
Contentions of respective parties in W.P.(C) No.654 of 2023 and
W.P.(C).No.655 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge.
13) Respondent No.5 in W.A. No.26 of 2025/petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.654 of 2023 contended that he was directed to join in post of Junior
Scientist by 10.12.2012 in the memorandum dt. 28.11.2012, that he joined on
07.12.2012 and his services were confirmed in the post of Junior Scientist by an
office order dt. 19.10.2015 on the successful completion of his probationary
period w.e.f. 07.12.2013.
He contended that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 he
applied to the Board for providing him merit list of different categories of
candidates who were selected to the post of Junior Scientist in the Board, and
on 24.02.2021, a merit list that was prepared for selection to the post of Junior
Scientist, was furnished to him which indicates that he was placed at Sl. No.1 of
the said merit list and the appellant was placed at Sl. No.2 in the merit list. He
contended that in view of his higher placement in the merit list, he should have
been shown as senior to the appellant in the seniority list.
14) The appellant in W.A No.26 of 2025/Respondent No.5 in W.P.(C)
No.654 of 2023 however contended in the writ petition that the selection
committee no doubt conducted an interview, but it did not prepare any merit
list.
The appellant also contended that his service was confirmed w.e.f.
05.12.2013 before the date of confirmation of the respondent no.5 on 7.12.2013
and, therefore, he was correctly shown as senior to the respondent No.5 in W.A.
No.26 of 2025.
15) The Board filed a counter affidavit stating that the post of Junior
Scientist is temporary in nature. It stated that a merit list was prepared by the
Selection Committee after the interview was conducted by it and admitted that
in that interview, the respondent No.5 in W.A. No.26 of 2025 was at Sl. No.1
and the appellant was at Sl. No.2.
It also stated that both the selected candidates were asked to join
by 10.12.2012 if they accepted the offer of appointment, that the respondent
No.5 joined on 07.12.2012 while the appellant joined on 05.12.2012. It also
stated that the service of respondent No.5 was confirmed w.e.f. 07.12.2013
while the service of the appellant was confirmed on 05.12.2013.
Reliance was placed by the Board on the Rules made by the
Government of Tripura on 18.05.2006 in which proviso to Rule 4 stated that
"where persons are recruited initially on a temporary basis but are confirmed
subsequently in an order different from the order of merit indicated at the time
of their appointment, seniority shall follow the order of confirmation and not
the original order of merit".
But no proceeding of the Board is filed adopting the rules framed
by the Government of Tripura for application in the Board for determining
seniority.
16) The respondent No.5 in W.A. No.122 of 2024/petitioner in
W.P.(C).No.655 of 2023 contended that after his selection as Junior
Environmental Engineer by the Interview Committee, he was asked to join by
10.12.2012 by a memorandum dt. 28.11.2012; and he joined in the post of
Junior Environmental Engineer on 05.12.2012; and that his services were
confirmed in the said post on 19.10.2015 w.e.f. 05.12.2013.
He also contended that he gave a letter on 24.03.2017 to the
Chairman of the Board praying for furnishing him a merit list of the Junior
Environmental Engineer for which interviews had been held pursuant to the
advertisement issued on 06.05.2011 and such merit list was furnished to him
which indicated that he was at Sl. No.1 in the merit list.
He also contended that since he was at Sl. No.1 in the merit list, he
should have been shown as senior to the appellant in W.A. No.122 of 2024 and
respondent No.6 in the said Writ Appeal.
17) The Board filed a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition taking a
stand similar to what it has taken in WP(C) No.654 of 2023 and admitting that
in the merit list, respondent No.5 was at Sl. No.1 in the merit list of Junior
Environmental Engineer, appellant was at Sl. No.2 and respondent No.6 was
placed at Sl. No.1 in the Scheduled Caste category (with which we are not
concerned).
The dates of confirmation of service of the respective parties as
stated by the respondent No.5 in the Writ Appeal/Writ Petitioner, were
admitted.
Reliance is again made on proviso to Rule 4 framed by the
Government of Tripura, General Administration (P&T) Department on
18.05.2006 referred to supra. The Board justified the action taken by it on the
basis of the said Rule.
The appellants supported the stand of the Board before the learned
Single Judge.
The common judgment of the Single Judge in WP(C) No.654 of 2023 and
18) A common judgment was pronounced in the WP(C) No.654 of
2023 and WP(C) No.655 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge, who allowed
both the Writ Petitions.
He held firstly that the date of joining duty cannot be the basis for
determining of seniority; and that when a person selected has been given time to
join, and within that period if he joins, regardless of the fact that the person who
is inferior in the merit list joins earlier, the former selected person will be
entitled to regain his seniority as in the original merit list.
He held that all the parties joined before the cut-off date and since
the consideration is expected to be made based on merit list, which is supposed
to be the scorecard and which is not disputed by the Board, respondent Nos.5 in
both the Writ Appeals (who are petitioners in WP(C) No.654 of 2023 and
WP(C) No.655 of 2023) having obtained better marks than the appellants,
should be seniors and the Final Seniority List drafted by the Board is incorrect.
He also held that the Rules cited by the Board for determination of
seniority are those applied by the Government of Tripura for it's employees and
they have not been adopted by the Board and, therefore, they are not applicable.
He held that the appellants cannot take advantage of the fact that
they reported prior to the reporting date of the respective respondent Nos.5/
Writ Petitioners, and that if more candidates than one are selected, seniority has
to be as per the rank of the direct recruits subject to adjustment of the
candidates selected applying the Rule of reservation and the roster. According
to him, mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the
ranking given by the Selection Committee.
The Writ Appeals
19) Challenging the same, these Writ Appeals are filed.
20) Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge
erred in granting relief to the respective private respondents ignoring the
proviso to Rule 4 of the memorandum dt.18.05.2006 issued by the
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Tripura, General
Administration (P&T) Department.
21) The said proviso, no doubt, states that "where persons are
recruited initially on a temporary basis are confirmed subsequently in an order
different from the order of merit indicated at the time of their appointment,
seniority shall follow the order of confirmation and not the original order of
merit".
22) However, neither the counsel for the appellants nor the counsel for
the Board has shown us any proceeding issued by the Board adopting the said
Rules of the State of Tripura for determination of seniority of employees in the
Board.
23) Admittedly, the Board was set up by the Government of Tripura in
1988 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is a statutory body set up
to enforce the said statutes. The fact that it is a statutory body is admitted in the
counter affidavit filed by the said Board.
24) The Board is an independent legal entity and is not part of the State
Government. Merely because it runs under the Department of Science,
Technology and Environment of the Government of Tripura, it cannot be
treated as part of the State Government.
25) In Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru v. Gujarat Water Supply
and Sewerage Board & others1, the Supreme Court held that employees of the
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board are not entitled to any benefit
flowing from any State Government Resolutions unless and until the said Board
has specifically adopted the said Government Resolutions. It held that the State
Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put on a par. It relied
(2021) 19 SCC 128
on its judgment in Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation
Limited and another v. Balbir Kumar Walia and others2 wherein it had held
that Board and Corporation employees stand on a different footing from
Central/State Government employees, that the Board is an independent entity
and it's employees cannot claim parity with employees of the State Government.
26) The general principle of law of seniority as laid down in Direct
Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra
and others3 at paragraph-47(A) is that "once an incumbent is appointed to a
post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his
appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation". Counsel for the
appellants or the Board have not cited any precedent/judgment to the contrary.
27) Therefore, merely because the appellants were confirmed a couple
of days before the respective private respondents No.5, they cannot claim
seniority basing on their dates of confirmation.
28) Though counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that there
is no merit list at all and that what was furnished to the Writ Petitioners/ private
respondents No.5 in the Writ Appeals by the Board was a mere 'score card' and
cannot be termed as a merit list, we do not accept the said contention.
29) The Board has categorically stated that what was furnished to the
respective respondents No.5 by it, are merit lists of the selection held pursuant
to the advertisement issued on 06.05.2011 for the post of Junior Scientist and
Junior Environmental Engineer respectively.
30) It is not the case of the appellants that they had got better marks
than the Writ Petitioners/respondents no.5 in the interview. There is no such
(2021) 8 SCC 784
(1990) 2 SCC 715
plea at all. If the appellants dispute the merit lists furnished by the Board, then
there is no other document produced by them to show that they were selected in
the interviews held for the respective posts. Then their own appointments will
be in jeopardy.
31) Undoubtedly, the private respondent Nos.5 in both the Writ
Appeals were shown as senior to the appellants in both the Writ Appeals in the
said merit lists.
32) Therefore, the respective respondents No.5 in both the Writ
Appeals have to be treated as senior to the appellants in the Writ Appeals.
33) The plea based on the dates of joining in the post of Junior
Scientist and Junior Environmental Engineer in the year 2012 raised by the
appellants and claiming seniority on the basis of their date of joining, was
rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge quoting the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and others4 and in
Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank and another v. Ananda Chandra Das and
others5.
34) We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeals. They are
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pulak
(2007) 1 SCC 405
(1994) 6 SCC 301
PULAK BANIK Date: 2025.09.03 14:27:21
+05'30'
