Tripura High Court

### Notification providing reservation remains binding on recruitment process unless explicitly repealed or withdrawn.

The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Tutan Debnath & Ors. [W.A. No. 107 of 2025]

Tripura High Court2 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Government of Tripura issued a notification on 26.10.2013 providing for a 2% reservation for Civil Defence volunteers in the recruitment of Police Constables

Source reference: p. 2, para. 4

On 20.12.2022, a recruitment notice for 1000 Constable posts was issued, stating that Civil Defence Personnel would be considered in accordance with government orders/notifications issued from time to time

Source reference: p. 2, para. 5

When the appellants failed to apply the 2% reservation, the respondents (writ petitioners) approached the High Court.

Source reference: no citation

A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 27.08.2025, directing the state to provide the reservation as the 2013 notification remained valid and unrepealed

Source reference: p. 3, para. 7

The State appealed this decision.

Source reference: no citation
02

Issues

Whether the respondents are entitled to a 2% reservation in the recruitment of Police Constables based on the notification dated 26.10.2013 and the recruitment notice dated 20.12.2022

Source reference: p. 2, para. 3
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the principle of administrative bindingness, holding that the government is bound by its own subsisting notifications and the specific terms laid out in a recruitment advertisement

Source reference: p. 3, para. 6

Specifically, it relied on the Home Department Notification dated 26.10.2013, which established the 2% quota

Source reference: p. 2, para. 4

and the doctrine that a validly existent notification which has not been repealed or withdrawn remains enforceable in law

Source reference: p. 3, para. 7
04

Reasoning

The Court rejected the Advocate General’s contention that the recruitment notice did not specify a percentage for reservation.

Source reference: no citation

It reasoned that since the recruitment notification of 20.12.2022 explicitly stated that existing orders and notifications would be followed regarding Civil Defence Personnel, the 2013 notification was incorporated by reference

Source reference: p. 4, para. 9

The Court observed that because the 2013 notification providing the 2% quota had never been repealed or withdrawn by the State, it remained "validly existent"

Source reference: p. 3, para. 7

Consequently, the appellants were legally bound to honor the 2% reservation for qualified volunteers who met the recruitment criteria

Source reference: p. 3, para. 6 & 7
05

Holding

The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal, finding no merit in the State's challenge

The Court upheld the Single Judge's direction to consider the respondents against the 2% vacancy reserved for Civil Defence personnel and to issue offers of appointment within eight weeks, provided the candidates qualified for all required tests and were not otherwise barred

Source reference: p. 3, para. 7; p. 4, para. 9

No costs were awarded

Source reference: p. 4, para. 10
Tripura High Court

Original Court PDF

The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Tutan Debnath & Ors. [W.A. No. 107 of 2025]

Tripura High Court

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment