State cannot selectively deny absorption to similarly situated employees meeting requisite scheme criteria.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Part-time Contract Teacher and later designated as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in 2010 to serve in Degree Colleges under the Higher Education Department.

Although designated as PGTs, the petitioner and 291 others performed the duties of Assistant Professors without receiving the corresponding UGC-scale remuneration.

Following a series of litigations (starting with W.P.(C) No. 1391/2019), the High Court directed the State to frame a scheme for the absorption of qualified PGTs as Assistant Professors.

Consequently, the State notified an absorption scheme on 21.09.2022 for PGTs with 12 years of service and requisite qualifications (NET/SLET/Ph.D).

While 16 out of 21 similarly situated teachers were absorbed via a memorandum dated 05.01.2023, the petitioner—despite a specific court direction in W.P.(C) No. 299/2021—was denied absorption on the grounds of "non-availability of vacancy".

Furthermore, the State issued a memorandum on 13.02.2025, suddenly withdrawing the 2022 absorption scheme.

1. Whether the State can selectively deny the absorption of a qualified PGT as an Assistant Professor on the grounds of non-availability of posts when similarly situated individuals have been absorbed.

2. Whether the State’s withdrawal of the 21.09.2022 absorption scheme via the memorandum dated 13.02.2025 is legally sustainable against the petitioner.

The Court primarily relied on the principle of non-discrimination in administrative action and the doctrine of parity as established in the Division Bench judgment of the Tripura High Court in W.A. No. 13 of 2026.

This precedent established that the State cannot selectively implement an absorption scheme for some while opposing others by raising pleas not previously raised.

The Court also referenced the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" in the context of PGTs discharging duties of Assistant Professors.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s situation was identical to the respondents in W.A. No. 201-205 of 2021 and subsequent litigations where the court mandated the creation and implementation of an absorption scheme.

The Court noted that the State had already accepted and implemented the judgment for others but excluded the petitioner.

Applying the reasoning from W.A. No. 13 of 2026, the Court found that the State cannot "selectively allow" some PGTs to get absorbed while denying the petitioner by citing vacancy issues or scheme withdrawals, especially since these arguments were not raised when other similar candidates approached the Court.

The Court concluded that since the petitioner's case was "squarely covered" by the Division Bench's findings, the technical objections regarding vacancy and the 2025 withdrawal memorandum were unsustainable.

The Court directed the respondents to absorb the petitioner into the post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.