Smti. Bela Datta vs The State of Tripura and 2 others

TRHC010008512025 2026:THC:794
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

WP(C) No.317 of 2025

Smti. Bela Datta,
W/o Sri Niladhwaj Banarjee,
Of-Dashamighat, Joynagar Road No.9, (near Mahabir Club),
P.S.-West Agartala, West Tripura.
Presently posted as Female Jailor,
Sonamura Sub-Jail, Sepahijala Tripura.

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus


1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura Home (Jail) Department, New Capital Complex,
P.O.-Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura, Prisons Directorate,
P.O.-Dhaleswar, Agartala, West Tripura.

3. The Superintendent, Sonamura Sub-Jail, Sepahijala Tripura.




----Respondent(s)


For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajasree Purkayastha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General
Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Sr. GA

Date of hearing : 23.06.2026


Date of delivery of

Judgment & Order : 29.06.2026

Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order


Heard Learned Counsel, Ms. Rajasree Purkayastha
appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Learned Advocate
General, Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty along with Learned Sr. GA, Mr.
Pradyumna Gautam appearing on behalf of the respondents-State.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“(I) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and
each one of them, to show cause as to why Writ of
Certiorari and/or in the nature, shall not be issued,
for quashing/setting aside the impugned decision of
the Respondent No.2, communicated to the
petitioner under reply vide No.F.700/IGP/2023
dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-E), thereby not finding
the petitioner eligible for promotion to the post of

Page 2 of 8

Deputy Superintendent of Home (Jail) Department
declaring the same to be illegal and
unconstitutional.

(II) ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and
each one of them, to show cause as to why Writ of
Mandamus and/or in the nature, shall not be issued,
for mandating/directing the respondents, for
promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy
Superintendent under Home Jail Department with
retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 04.10.2023 and
thereafter provide her all consequential service

benefits accordingly.
(II) CALL FOR THE RECORDS appertaining to this
petition;

(III) COSTS of and incidental to this proceeding;
(IV) Any other RELIEF(S) as to this Hon’ble High
Court may deem fit and proper;”

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that on 24.09.1997, the petitioner joined in the
service as a Female Sub-Jailor under Home (Jail) Department through
TPSC and since then she has been serving sincerely without any
barrier or blemish on her service record. It was further submitted that
she was a gold medalist in the “Six Month Correctional Administrative
Training Course” from Sampurnanand Jail Training Institute, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow in the year 2001 and had also undergone training
on Vertical Interaction Course, Human Rights in Prison Management,
Govt. of India and some others. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that as per the recruitment rules, a Sub-Jailor
becomes entitled to promotion to the post of Jailor after completion of
10 years of continuous service. Since the petitioner joined in service in
the year 1997 and her 10 years of service completed in the year 2007
as such, she was eligible for getting promotion but for any reason she
was not given promotion to the post of Female Jailor. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.201 of 2015 before
this Court and in pursuance of the judgment and order of this Court
dated 11.03.2016, the petitioner was given promotion and appointed
to the post of Female Jailor vide order dated 04.10.2018 (Annexure-

Page 3 of 8

B). It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that during the year
2018-2020, the petitioner was posted at Kendriya Sansodhanagar,
Bishalgarh as Jailor and thereafter, she was transferred to Sonamura
Jail wherein she continued serving as Jailor successfully till date. Thus,
she became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy
Superintendent. Further, it was also submitted that as per the
recruitment rules, the post of Deputy Superintendent shall be filled up
by promotion from Jailor/Probation Officer with 5 years of experience
in the grade. The Tripura Sansodhanagar Rules, 2021 came into effect
w.e.f. 08.12.2021 and after implementation of the said rules,
promotion has been given to one Sri Prasenjit Das to the post of
Deputy Superintendent on 04.05.2022. However, inspite of having
eligibility, on completion of 5 years of service as Female Jailor on
04.10.2023, the petitioner was not given promotion to the post of
Deputy Superintendent. In this regard, on 06.11.2023, she submitted
a prayer to the respondent No.2 but that was not considered. After
that, the petitioner again filed a case before this Court bearing WP(C)
No.826 of 2024 and this Court by judgment and order dated
07.01.2025 directed the respondents to consider the matter of
promotion of the present petitioner for the post of Deputy
Superintendent (Home) Jail. The said order was communicated to the
respondent authority but the respondents did not comply with the
same. Thereafter, she filed one contempt petition and in the contempt
proceeding, after receipt of notice, a letter was communicated vide
communication dated 01.05.2025 to the petitioner that she was not
found eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent.
(Annexure-E). According to Learned Counsel for the petitioner, as per
recruitment rules, there was no gender discrimination for Male

Page 4 of 8

Jailor/Female Jailor for promotion to the post of Deputy
Superintendent and as such, she was eligible for promotion. However,
from the communication dated 01.05.2025, it appears that on the
ground of gender discrimination her promotional scope has been
curtailed by the respondent authority. Accordingly, she was compelled
to file this writ petition again before this Court seeking redress.
Further, Learned Counsel, Ms. Rajasree Purkayastha in
course of hearing relied upon one judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya & Ors.,
reported in (2020) 7 SCC 469, wherein in para Nos.68-70 Hon’ble
the Apex Court observed as under:
“68. Seventy years after the birth of a post-colonial
independent State, there is still a need for change in
attitudes and mindsets to recognise the
commitment to the values of the Constitution. This
is evident from the submissions which were placed
as a part of the record of this Court. Repeatedly, in
the course of the submissions, this Court has been
informed that:

68.1. The profession of Arms is a way of life which
requires sacrifice and commitment beyond the call
of duty.

68.2. Women officers must deal with pregnancy,
motherhood and domestic obligations towards their
children and families and may not be well-suited to
the life of a soldier in the Armed Forces.

68.3. A soldier must have the physical capability to
engage in combat and inherent in the physiological
differences between men and women is the
lowering of standards applicable to women.

68.4. An all-male environment in a unit would
require “moderated behaviour” in the presence of
women officers.

68.5. The “physiological limitations” of women
officers are accentuated by challenges of
confinement, motherhood and child care.

68.6. The deployment of women officers is not
advisable in areas where members of the Armed
Forces are confronted with “minimal facility for
habitat and hygiene”.

69. The submissions advanced in the note tendered
to this Court are based on sex stereotypes premised
on assumptions about socially ascribed roles of
gender which discriminate against women.
Underlying the statement that it is a “greater
challenge” for women officers to meet the hazards
of service “owing to their prolonged absence during
pregnancy, motherhood and domestic obligations

Page 5 of 8

towards their children and families” is a strong
stereotype which assumes that domestic obligations
rest solely on women. Reliance on the “inherent
physiological differences between men and women”
rests in a deeply entrenched stereotypical and
constitutionally flawed notion that women are the
“weaker” sex and may not undertake tasks that are
“too arduous” for them. Arguments founded on the
physical strengths and weaknesses of men and
women and on assumptions about women in the
social context of marriage and family do not
constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying
equal opportunity to women officers. To deny the
grant of PCs to women officers on the ground that
this would upset the “peculiar dynamics” in a unit
casts an undue burden on women officers which has
been claimed as a ground for excluding women. The
written note also relies on the “minimal facilities for
habitat and hygiene” as a ground for suggesting
that women officers in the services must not be
deployed in conflict zones. The respondents have
placed on record that 30% of the total women
officers are in fact deputed to conflict areas.

70. These assertions which we have extracted bodily
from the written submissions which have been
tendered before this Court only go to emphasise the
need for change in mindsets to bring about true
equality in the Army. If society holds strong beliefs
about gender roles — that men are socially
dominant, physically powerful and the breadwinners
of the family and that women are weak and
physically submissive, and primarily caretakers
confined to a domestic atmosphere — it is unlikely
that there would be a change in mindsets.
Confronted on the one hand with a solemn policy
decision taken by the Union Government allowing
for the grant of PC to women SSC officers in ten
streams, we have yet on the other hand a whole
baseless line of submissions solemnly made to this
Court to detract from the vital role that has been
played by women SSC officers in the line of duty.”

Relying upon the same, Learned Counsel submitted that
the fact of the present case is covered by the principle of the aforesaid
observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted
case which may be applied in the case.
4. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
respondents-State submitted that although the recruitment rule for the
post of Deputy Superintendent is silent but for the post of Female
Jailor separate recruitment rule was framed by the Government and
furthermore, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim promotion
until there is gross violation of natural justice. So, Learned Advocate

Page 6 of 8

General urged before this Court to direct the petitioner to submit a
representation without issuing any mandamus and in that event the
same may be considered by the respondent authority.
The respondents-State have contested the present writ
petition by filing counter affidavit denying the assertions of the
petitioner regarding the claim of promotion but admitted the other
facts and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I have heard both the sides and perused the writ petition
and the documents as well as the counter affidavit filed by the said
respondents. I have also gone through the citation referred by the
Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
6. It is the admitted position that in pursuance of the
direction of this Court, the petitioner who had joined as Female Sub-
Jailor on 24.09.1997 was promoted to the post of Jailor in pursuance
of judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 in WP(C) No.201/2015. It is
also the admitted position that the Government of Tripura has framed
separate recruitment rules for the post of Female Jailor. The
respondents in the counter affidavit could not submit anything adverse
against the performance of the present petitioner as Sub-Jailor and
thereafter as Jailor during her entire period of service. It is also the
settled position of law that as a matter of right a person cannot claim
promotion from the Department but at the same time it is also true
that promotion is considered by the authority if the performance of a
particular employee is satisfactory to his/her earlier post which he/she
was serving. In this case, the petitioner promoted to the post of Jailor
from the post of Sub-Jailor in the year 2018 and since then she was
discharging the functions as Jailor initially in the Kendriya
Sansodhanagar Bishalgarh and thereafter in Sonamura Jail till date

Page 7 of 8

satisfactorily and as per recruitment rules, she was eligible for
promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent although, by this
time, the Government has promoted one Prasenjit Das as Deputy
Superintendent on 04.05.2022. Furthermore, on the basis of gender
discrimination the right of the petitioner being woman cannot be
curtailed by the Authority for promotion.
In the recruitment rules relied upon by the petitioner, it
appears that there is no gender discrimination in the said recruitment
rules regarding promotion of any Female Jailor to the post of Deputy
Superintendent. So, in absence of any specific rule there is no legal
scope to deprive the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Deputy
Superintendent (Home) Jail on the ground of gender discrimination.
Learned Advocate General in course of hearing could not
discard the said submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner
although he in his usual fairness submitted that the petitioner as a
matter of right cannot claim for promotion until and unless there is
gross violation of the principles of natural justice. But regarding the
communication dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-E), Learned Advocate
General could not give any specific clarification regarding sustainability
of the said communication which appears to be contrary to the
recruitment rules framed by the Government vide Notification dated
10.09.1982. In the writ petition bearing WP(C) No.826 of 2024, a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated
07.01.2025 directed the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent although
the same has not been complied with.
Thus, it appears to this Court that the respondent authority
failed to consider the direction passed by this Court vide judgment and

Page 8 of 8

order dated 07.01.2025 in WP(C) No.826 of 2024 rather the
respondents issued the impugned communication dated 01.05.2025
(Annexure-E), which in my considered opinion was not proper and in
accordance with the settled principle of law.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is hereby allowed. The communication dated 01.05.2025
written by Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura to the petitioner
(Annexure-E) stands quashed as the same appears to be contrary to
the principles of natural justice.
The respondents authority may consider the case of the
petitioner within a period of 3(three) months for promotion to the post
of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail, if she is found eligible in all
criteria and also in accordance with the norms.
With this observation, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
A copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the
office of Learned Advocate General of Tripura who may take up the
matter with the respondents authority for consideration of the case of
the petitioner in accordance with the guideline/rules. The petitioner is
also at liberty to communicate this judgment and order to the
respondent authority within a period of 7(seven) days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of .




JUDGE



Snigdha
SNIGDH
A DAS
Digitally signed
by SNIGDHA DAS
Date: 2026.06.30
16:10:18 +05'30'