A senior Grade-I officer is entitled to Principal Officer posting over a junior.

The petitioner, a senior officer in the TTAADC Health Services cadre, was promoted from Grade-II to Grade-I by an order dated 12 January 2023.

A subsequent order dated 17 January 2023 changed his designation to Medical Officer, Grade-I, and he continued to serve at Twikarmo Hospital, where he had previously worked as a Grade-II officer.

The petitioner challenged the change and posting, asserting that a junior officer had been posted as Principal Officer (Health and Family Welfare), Grade-I.

He argued that his promotion was regularised only on 11 February 2026 and that he approached the Court thereafter.

The respondents relied on the Tripura Health Service Rules as adopted by the TTAADC and raised delay; their counsel also stated that they had no objection to posting the petitioner to a Grade-I post commensurate with his eligibility.

Respondent No. 4 did not appear despite service.

Whether the petitioner’s continued posting as Medical Officer, Grade-I, at Twikarmo Hospital was permissible under the applicable TTAADC memorandum.

Whether, given the petitioner’s seniority and the available Grade-I posts, he was entitled to be posted as Principal Officer, Health and Family Welfare, Grade-I.

The Court referred to the Tripura Health Service Rules, which the respondents stated had been adopted by the TTAADC, and to the TTAADC memorandum dated 16 March 2023 concerning the designation and posting of Health Service officers.

The Court noted that the TTAADC had two Grade-I posts in the relevant service: Principal Officer and Additional Principal Officer, Health and Family Welfare.

The Court found that, despite the petitioner’s promotion to Grade-I, he remained posted at Twikarmo Hospital in a role he had held as a Grade-II officer. It held that this posting was inconsistent with the TTAADC memorandum dated 16 March 2023 and therefore required immediate change.

Since the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 4 and the two identified Grade-I posts were the Principal Officer and Additional Principal Officer posts, the Court concluded that the petitioner should be posted as Principal Officer, Grade-I.

The respondents’ objection based on delay did not prevent relief.

It also directed the respondents to pass an appropriate posting order concerning respondent No. 4.