Facts
The 20 petitioners, Executive Engineers (TES-III) in the Tripura Public Works Department (PWD) belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category, challenged a notification dated 13.02.2026 [Annexure-9] which granted "Full Duty Charge" (FDC) of Superintending Engineer (TES-II) posts to certain junior officers (private respondents)
Source reference: p. 4-5The petitioners contended this violated a Finance Department Memorandum dated 24.09.2020, which required FDC assignments to be based on suitability and seniority
Source reference: p. 5The State responded that FDC is merely a temporary administrative arrangement, not a promotion, and that the petitioners were ineligible for regular promotion as they had not completed the mandatory 7 years of service in TES-III as required by the Tripura Engineering Service Rules
Source reference: p. 10-11furthermore, the State noted that the ST quota for the post was already exhausted
Source reference: p. 15-16Issues
1. Whether the grant of Full Duty Charge (FDC) to junior officers constitutes a violation of the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 62. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the petitioners failed to approach the departmental authorities with a representation prior to filing the writ petition
Source reference: p. 27-283. Whether the petitioners, having been appointed under the ST category, can claim rights over posts specifically filled via administrative exigency for other categories when the ST quota is exhausted
Source reference: p. 17, 29Law Applied
Rule 15(2) of the Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014), which mandates a minimum of 7 years of regular service in Grade-III for eligibility to Grade-II posts
Source reference: p. 17The principle from Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise and State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, establishing that a demand for justice and its refusal by the appropriate authority must precede a petition for a writ of mandamus
Source reference: p. 27-28Precedents like K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal were used to affirm that temporary arrangements like "Current Duty Charge" (CDC) or FDC do not confer indefeasible rights to promotion
Source reference: p. 26Reasoning
The Court reasoned that FDC is a "stop-gap arrangement" necessitated by administrative exigency and does not equate to a regular promotion
Source reference: p. 10, 26The Court found that the petitioners lacked the locus standi to challenge the assignments because they did not meet the statutory eligibility criteria of 7 years' service under the TES Rules, 1987
Source reference: p. 17, 29The Court observed that out of 53 sanctioned posts, the 16 posts reserved for the ST category (to which petitioners belong) were already filled or accounted for by other ST officers on FDC
Source reference: p. 16, 29Critically, the Court noted the petitioners bypassed the mandatory procedural requirement of filing a representation before the State authorities, rendering the prayer for mandamus premature and legally unsustainable
Source reference: p. 28Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notification dated 13.02.2026 was a valid temporary administrative measure that did not curtail any vested rights of the petitioners
The Court held that since the petitioners were ineligible for promotion under the Recruitment Rules and the ST quota was exhausted, no cause of action survived. Consequently, the interim stay granted on 25.03.2026 was vacated
Source reference: p. 29-30Original Court PDF
Sri Swapan Debbarma, EE and 19 OthersvsThe State of Tripura and 11 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in