On Thursday, in a significant constitutional challenge concerning public employment, the Tripura High Court stayed further proceedings relating to recruitment for the posts of Director and Deputy Director in the Directorate of Prosecution after prima facie finding that the State’s prescription of residence requirement for employment may violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
The Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit observed that preference based on residence in matters of public employment appeared constitutionally impermissible in the absence of parliamentary legislation.
The case arose from a writ petition challenging the State of Tripura’s prescription of residence requirement in recruitment for the posts of Director and Deputy Director in the Directorate of Prosecution under the Home Department. The Petitioner contended that granting preference to residents of the State in public employment violated the constitutional protection against discrimination on grounds of residence guaranteed under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
While examining the issue, the High Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s observations in Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and Telangana Judges Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. The Bench reiterated that “residence by itself – be it be within a State region, district or lesser area within a district cannot be a ground to accord preferential treatment or reservation” and further noted that “nativity for public employment runs counter to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(2)” except where permitted through parliamentary legislation under Article 16(3). Prima facie agreeing with the challenge raised, the Court observed that the State’s prescription or preference for residents of Tripura “appears to be violative of Art.16(2) of the Constitution of India.”
Consequently, the Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Advertisement Nos. 20/2025 and 22/2025 until further orders and directed the respondents to file counter affidavits. The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 16, 2026.
Case Title: Sri Arun Kumar Panwar Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No.257 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Arun Kumar Panwar (Petitioner-in-Person)
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Somik Deb, AG Saktimoy Chakraborti, G.A Kohinoor Narayan Bhattacharyya, Adv. Kundan Pandey
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
