Denial of promotion based on gender stereotypes and non-existent recruitment rules is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The petitioner joined service as a Female Sub-Jailor in 1997. After a successful previous litigation [WP(C) No. 201 of 2015], she was promoted to the post of Female Jailor on 04.10.2018.

Having completed five years in that grade, she claimed eligibility for promotion to Deputy Superintendent under the Tripura Sansodhanagar Rules, 2021. Despite a court direction in a second writ petition [WP(C) No. 826 of 2024] to consider her case, the Respondent No. 2 issued a communication dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-E) declaring her ineligible, citing gender as a barrier to the promotion.

The petitioner challenged this communication as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The Recruitment Rules for Deputy Superintendent (Home Jail Department) framed under the Notification dated 10.09.1982, which provides for promotion from the grade of Jailor/Probation Officer with five years of experience without specifying gender restrictions.

The constitutional principle of gender equality in public employment, heavily relying on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 469, which held that "physiological limitations" or social stereotypes regarding gender roles cannot constitute a valid basis for denying equal opportunity.

The Court observed that the petitioner had a blemish-free service record and met the technical eligibility criteria of five years of service as a Jailor.

Upon inspecting the relevant recruitment rules, the Court found an absence of any gender-based classification or discrimination regarding the post of Deputy Superintendent.

The Court reasoned that the respondents' attempt to curtail the petitioner's promotional scope based on sex stereotypes was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the law established in Babita Puniya.

It further noted that the respondent authority had failed to comply with the previous judicial direction to "consider" the petitioner fairly, instead issuing a rejection that lacked legal sustainability under the 1982 Rules.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned communication dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-E) as being contrary to the principles of natural justice and the recruitment rules. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail within three months, provided she meets all other eligibility criteria and norms.