Shri Debashis Shil vs The State of Tripura and 3 Others

TRHC010000542026
2026:THC:1213

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

WP(C) No.40 of 2026


Shri Debashis Shil (Aged about 45 years),
S/o- Shri Kajal Baran Shil,
Resident of Sripalli, Badharghat,
West Tripura, Agartala,
P.O.- Siddhi Ashram, P.S.- A.D. Nagar,
PIN-799003.

…. Petitioner(s).

Versus


1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary
Home (Jail) Department,
Govt. of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
P.O. & P.S.- New Capital Complex,
Dist.- West Tripura,
PIN-799010.

2. Secretary,
Home (Jail) Department,
Govt. of Tripura,
New Capital Complex,
P.O. & P.S. - New Capital Complex,
Dist.- West Tripura,
PIN-799010.

3. Inspector General of Prisons,
Home (Jail) Department
Govt. of Tripura,
Prison Directorate,
Dhaleswar Near Purbasha,
P.O.- Dhaleswar, P.S.- East Agartala,
Dist.- West Tripura,
PIN-799007.

4. OSD, Head of Office,

Prison Directorate,
Dhaleswar Near Purbasha,
P.O.- Dhaleswar, P.S.- East Agartala,
Dist.-West Tripura,
PIN-799007.


…….Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Date of Hearing : 28.08.2026

Date of delivery of

Judgment and Order : 03.09.2026
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES

Page 2 of 12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs
by the petitioner:-
i. Admit the petition;
ii. Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to show
cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus or in the
nature thereof shall not be issued directing the
Respondents to promote the petitioner in the
post of jailor as there is post of Jailor are lying
vacant in the Home (Jail) Department,
Government of Tripura and the name of the
petitioner has shown against serial No.-1 in the
provisional seniority list of Sub-Jailor, under the
Home (Jail) Department as on 01.01.2024 and
also to pay him the salary for the post of Jailor
for the entire period for which he hold the post
of Jailor I/C;
iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus or in the nature
thereof commending upon the Respondents to
promote the petitioner in the post of jailor as
there is post of Jailor are lying vacant in the
Home (Jail) Department, Government of Tripura
and the name of the petitioner has shown
against serial No.-1 in the provisional seniority
list of Sub-Jailor, under the Home (Jail)
Department as on 01.01.2024 and also to pay
him the salary for the post of Jailor for the
entire period for which he hold the post of Jailor
I/C;
iv. Call for the records from the respondents;
v. After hearing the petition be pleased to make
the Rules absolute in terms of prayer Nos.(iii);
vi. Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper under the
circumstances narrated above; and
vii. Pass an order of cost in favour of the petitioner.


02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee
appearing for the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. G.A.,
Mr. M. Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
03. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondent
No.1 through TPSC published a notification for the post of Sub-
Jailor under Home (Jail) Department, Government of Tripura and

Page 3 of 12

the petitioner being an eligible candidate participated in the said
examination and stood first and thereafter he was appointed in
the post of Sub-Jailor, under Home (Jail) Department,
Government of Tripura and joined in the said post on 19.05.2014
[ Annexure-1 ].
04. Thereafter, the department by an Office Order dated
13.05.2022 ordered the petitioner to perform the duty as Jailor
I/C of the Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, Bishalgarh. On the
basis of the said order the petitioner is still performing his duties
as a Jailor I/C till date with full satisfaction of the department
[ Annexure-2 ].
05. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the
petitioner that, during his service tenure he was posted at various
jails with several responsibilities and being satisfied with his duties
he was rewarded numerous times by the authority. He got four
cash rewards during his tenure at the Kendriya Sansodhanagar,
Tripura, Bishalgarh. He is also performing his duties as a Probation
Officer in several Districts of Tripura under the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 and is now acting as a Probation Officer for
the West Tripura District as per Order dated 31.01.2024

[ Annexure-3 ].
06. According to the petitioner as per recruitment rules
for the post of Jailor if a person serves more than 10 years to the
post of Sub-Jailor then he shall be eligible for promotion to the
post of Jailor. The petitioner joined service on 19.05.2014 as a
Sub-Jailor under Home (Jail) Department and he had already

Page 4 of 12

completed nearly 11 years and 06 months in the same post, so
therefore he has become eligible for promotion to the post of
Jailor on 19.05.2024 [Annexure-4] .
07. The General Administration (Personal and Training)
Department, Government of Tripura of the respondent No.1 issued
a Notification on 22.06.2021 bearing NO.F.2(24)-GA (P&T)/2021,
in point number 8 (VII) it has been specifically mentioned as
under:-
“The ad-hoc appointment promotion as per guidelines
illustrated above shall be started in the higher grade of
cadre/service first. Due to such promotion, the resultant
vacancies shall be added with the vacancies in the lower grade,
and to be filled up subsequently.”

According to Learned Counsel as per the said
notification it is clear that for filling up of a post on ad-hoc basis
the upper post must be filled up first and then the promotion of
the lower post shall come into effect, but in gross violation of the
said Notification dated 22.06.2021 the respondent No.1, issued a
Memorandum on 31.05.2025 bearing No.F.X-659/IGP/2023/1131-
39, wherein as per recommendation of the DPC, promotion of a
person namely Madan Debbarma had given from the post of Head
Warder to the post of Sub-Jailor under Home (Jail) Department
thus, violating the Recruitment Rules [ Annexures-5, 6 & 7 ].
08. The petitioner started performing his duties as a Jailor
I/C of the Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, Bishalgarh w.e.f.
13.05.2022. After that, the petitioner submitted one
representation on 09.07.2025 to the respondent No.3 through
proper channel for getting promotion to the post of Jailor which

Page 5 of 12

was duly received by the authority but till date no action was
taken. Thereafter, the petitioner served an Advocate’s Notice upon
the respondents on 24.11.2025 but inspite of that no action was
taken. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

09. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that as per the order
the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Jailor on
completion of 10 years of service but unfortunately till today no
promotion has been given to him. In support of his contention, he
relied upon one judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Ajit Singh And Others (II) Vs. State of Punjab and Others
reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 , wherein in Para Nos.22, 24, 27,
Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They
deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands
that the “State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws”. Article 16(1) issues a
positive command that
“there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State”.

It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of
Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from
Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in
Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of
opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any
office under the State. The word “employment” being wider,
there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of
promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of
recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee
otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone
of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for
promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be
“considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility
and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then
there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be
“considered” for promotion, which is his personal right.

“Promotion” based on equal opportunity and “seniority”
attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right
under Article 16(1)

Page 6 of 12

24. The question is as to whether the right to be
considered for promotion is a mere statutory right or a
fundamental right.

27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok
Kumar Gupta [(1997) 5 SCC 201 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1299] and
followed in Jagdish Lal [(1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1550] and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the
right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for
promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by
promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is
only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot
accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the
right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the
sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has
never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar
Gupta [(1997) 5 SCC 201 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1299] right from
1950.”

Relying upon the same, he submitted that the right of
promotion be treated as a fundamental right guaranteed under

Article 16(1).
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied

upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated
27.03.2018 in WP(C) No.406 of 2013 wherein in internal page
No.6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as observed as under in respect
of vacancies in the prison staff:-
“Vacancies in the Prison Staff

With regard to vacancies of staff in the prisons,
NALSA has given us a status report and we find that
there are a very large number of vacant prison posts.
In some cases, the vacancies run into a couple of
thousands.
The combined sanctioned strength of prisons staff
in all the prisons in the country is 77,230 out of which
st
there are 24,588 vacancies as on 31 December, 2017.
Therefore, it is quite clear that there is slightly more
than 30% vacancies in the prisons staff.
Learned amicus curiae informs us that when he had
enquired from the prison officials about filling up of
the vacancies he was told that the matter is “under
process”. But, the stage of the process has not been
indicated.
We require the Director General of Police (Prisons)
of the State Governments/Union Territories to
specifically state on affidavit clearly and unequivocally

Page 7 of 12

the steps that have been taken to fill up the vacancies
and the progress made in that regard.
The needful be done within two weeks.”

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon

another order dated 08.05.2018 in the same Writ Petition(Civil)
No.406 of 2013 wherein in respect of vacancies in the prison staff,
the following observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India :-
“3. Vacancies in the prisons staff

From the Note of learned amicus curiae, we find
that once again there is little interest being shown by
the prison authorities and the State Governments to
recruit staff in prisons. This, of course, has its own
impact on prison administration.
Looking to the Note of learned amicus curiae, we
are of opinion that this matter should also be taken up
by each High Court.
Accordingly, we request the Chief Justice of every
High Court to take up this matter as a suo moto writ
petition.
The Secretary General should send a copy of this
order to the Registrar General of every High Court for
necessary steps in this regard and report back to us.”

12. Lastly, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon
one communication of the Director (Prison Reforms) to the
Principal Secretary (Home Jails) of all States and UTs dated
23.10.2025 wherein in Para Nos.4 & 5, the following
communication was made:-
“4. Despite these measures, the latest figures on
prison staff vacancy as per Prison Statistics India
2023, continue to reflect large-scale vacancies across
all categories of posts. Out of a total of 94,458/
sanctioned posts of prison staff across the country,
only 63,490 are in position, reflecting an overall
vacancy rate of about 33%. In particular, out of 1,437
sanctioned posts under the correctional staff category
(including welfare officers, psychologists,
psychiatrists, etc.), only 788 posts are currently filled
– indicating a 45% vacancy rate. Similarly, there are
1,710 vacant posts out of a total of 3,781 sanctioned
for medical staff. Further, only 31 psychologists and
psychiatrists are reported to be employed in prisons

Page 8 of 12

across the country and 25 States/ UTs don’t have any
sanctioned posts for mental health professionals.

5. In view of the above, the State Governments and UT
Administrations are advised to undertake immediate
steps to fill up the vacant posts across all categories,
particularly medical staff, in their prison departments.”

13. Relying upon those judgments and orders, Learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no scope on the
part of the respondents-department to deny the benefit to the
petitioner in respect of his promotion on completion of qualifying
10 years of service.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that,
since the petitioner was discharging the duties of a higher post, he
was entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale. In support of his
contention, Learned Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvaraj Vs. Lt. Governor of
Island, Port Blair and Others reported in (1998) 4 SCC 291,
wherein in Para No.4, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
“4. The decision of the Central Administrative
Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant to the
aforesaid limited extent is therefore required to be set
aside. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent
that the respondents will be called upon to make
available to the appellant the difference of salary in
the time scale of 1640-2900 during the period from
29-1-1992 to 19-9 1995 during which time the
appellant actually worked. It is made clear that the
payment of the aforesaid difference amount of salary
shall not be treated to amount to any promotion given
to the appellant on the said post. It is only on the
ground that he had actually worked, as such this relief
is being given to him. The difference of salary as
aforesaid shall be paid over to the appellant within
eight weeks from today. No costs.”

15. Relying upon the same, Learned Counsel submitted
that the petitioner is entitled to the additional benefit for
discharging the duties of Jailor w.e.f. 13.05.2022.

Page 9 of 12

16. The State-respondents have contested the case by
filing a written counter-affidavit wherein in Para No.10, it has been
stated as under:-
“10. That, in reply to para 11 & 12 of the writ
petition, I say that as already stated herein above that
promotion is not a vested or statutory right; the Rules
only contemplate consideration for promotion subject
to vigilance/disciplinary clearance and other
prescribed conditions. Hence, the petitioner cannot
claim promotion as a matter of right, particularly when
the service conditions and applicable rules do not
mandate automatic advancement.
It is pertinent to mention that promotion to a
vacant post is dependent on administrative
requirements and for smooth functioning of
Government establishment. In accordance with the
service rules, the competent authority has full
discretion to determine the timing of promotion based
on the requirements and needs of the department.
Except these, it is submitted that, in the interest of
administrative requirements and for the smooth
functioning of Government establishments, whenever
a post falls vacant due to transfer, retirement, or any
other reason, it is a common and well-established
practice to entrust the duties and responsibilities of
such vacant post to a senior staff member of the
immediate lower rank as an in-charge. Such
arrangement is purely temporary in nature and is
made at the local or field level. Accordingly, the
petitioner, Sri Debashis Shil was entrusted to perform
the duties of Jailor In-Charge purely as temporary
arrangement at the Kendriya Sansodhanagar Tripura,
Bishalgarh vide order dated 13/05/2022. The
arrangement was done as there was no man in
position for the post of Jailor of the Kendriya
Sanshodhanagar at the time. Therefore, the petitioner
is not entitled to receive the salary or pay scale
associated with the higher post such as Jailor for the
entire period during for which Sri Debashis Shil, Sub-
Jailor hold the post of Jailor In-Charge at Kendriya
Sansodhanagar Tripura, Bishalgarh as this is a stop-
gap arrangement without formal promotion or
appointment to the higher post.
It is further submitted that promotion to the post of
Jailor is governed by the policy decision of the State
Government and the applicable service rules, and the
same is subject to the prevailing reservation policy and
administrative exigencies. Therefore, promotion
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the same is
required to be considered strictly in accordance with
the applicable rules, policies and availability of eligible
candidates at the relevant time.”

Page 10 of 12

17. Referring the same, Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. M.
Debbarma for the respondents submitted that promotion is not a
vested or statutory right; the Rules only contemplate
consideration for promotion subject to vigilance/disciplinary
clearance and other prescribed conditions.
18. According to Learned Addl. G.A. for the State-
respondents that the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a
matter of right when the service conditions do not mandate
automatic advancement and promotion to a vacant post is
dependent on administrative requirements. So, Learned Addl. G.A.
for the State-respondents finally submitted that as a matter of
right the petitioner cannot claim promotion to the post of Jailor
and there is no scope to issue any mandamus in this regard and
urged for dismissal of this writ petition.
19. Heard both the sides at length and perused the writ
petition and the documents annexed along with that and the
counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents and also the
citations referred by Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time
of hearing.
20. Admittedly, there is no dispute on record that the
petitioner was appointed to the post of Sub-Jailor through TPSC
and joined in the service on 19.05.2014. Thereafter, till today he
is discharging his job in the same post and during that period he
has served in different jails of Tripura. In addition to that he is
serving as Probation Officer of West Tripura District since the year
2024 and from 13.05.2022 he is also performing the duty of Jailor

Page 11 of 12

I/C of Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Tripura, Bishalgarh but no
additional financial benefit was given to him. The State-
respondents only took the plea that the petitioner as a matter of
statutory right cannot claim for promotion. It is also on record that
there is post of Jailor vacant in the respective department and the
petitioner has also got the requisite qualification for promotion to
the said post of Jailor. It is the settled position of law that a
person as a matter of right cannot claim promotion but at the
same time, it is also true that in a welfare State if a person
discharges his duties sincerely, diligently with utmost satisfaction
of the authority, he can expect promotion from his authority for
his further motivation in his job. The respondents-authority save
and except the technical issue could not place any materials on
record to deny the benefit to the petitioner. Moreso, after
extracting service for a higher post for a considerable period of
long time, the respondents also cannot deny the benefit of
promotion to the petitioner.
Thus, it appears to this Court that the respondents are
utilizing the service of the present petitioner as Jailor, Kendriya
Sansodhanagar, Tripura, Bishalgarh w.e.f. 13.05.2022 without
extending any financial benefits to him which amounts to denial
and violation of his fundamental right. Furthermore, there is
vacant post of jailor. The respondents could not place any adverse
inputs against the petitioner stating that he is not entitled for
promotion. So, simply on the ground of policy decision there is no

Page 12 of 12

scope to curtail the right of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner
is entitled to get relief in this petition.
21. In the result, the respondents-authority is asked to
consider the case of promotion of the petitioner within a period of
04 (four) months from the date of passing of this judgment/order
provided he fulfills all the criteria with further direction to consider
additional incentives to the petitioner for the post of Jailor I/C
which he is holding and discharging his functions in addition to his
normal job as Sub-Jailor at present w.e.f. 13.05.2022 within the
said period of 04 (four) months.
22.

With this observation, this present writ petition
accordingly stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE






Amrita
AMRITA
DEB
Digitally signed by
AMRITA DEB
Date: 2026.09.05
12:58:21 +05'30'