Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Tripura High Court: In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a female Jailor claim for promotion, the Single Judge Bench of Biswajit Palit, J., allowed the writ petition and held that, in the absence of any gender-based distinction in the recruitment rules, a woman employee could not be denied promotion on the ground of gender. The Court further held that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was contrary to the recruitment rules and the principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the communication dated 1 May 2025, rejecting the petitioner’s claim and directed the authorities to reconsider her case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail within 3 months.
The Court observed that,
“On the basis of gender discrimination, the right of the petitioner being a woman cannot be curtailed by the authority for promotion.”
Background
The petitioner joined the Home (Jail) Department as a female sub-Jailor on 24 September 1997, through the Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC). She was a gold medallist in the Six Month Correctional Administrative Training Course at Sampurnanand Jail Training Institute, Lucknow (2001) and had undergone Human Rights in Prison Management training. Though she became eligible for promotion as Jailor after completing 10 years of unblemished service, she was promoted only on 4 October 2018, pursuant to the High Court’s directions in an earlier writ petition. After completing 5 years as female Jailor, she claimed eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the applicable recruitment rules. However, despite an earlier direction of the High Court requiring the authorities to consider her claim, the Inspector General of Prisons, by communication dated 1 May 2025, found her ineligible for promotion.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, contending that her claim had been rejected solely because she was a woman, although the recruitment rules did not prescribe any gender-based distinction for promotion.
Also Read: Cases Reported in HCC | Latest High Court Cases on Service and Labour Laws
Analysis and decision
The Court noted that the petitioner was promoted as Jailor pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court and that the respondents had not pointed out any adverse material regarding her performance throughout her service. The Court also noted the separate recruitment rules for post of female Jailor by the Government of Tripura. The Court reiterated that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but an eligible employee is entitled to consideration based on their satisfactory service and that the petitioner had satisfactorily served as Jailor and fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the recruitment rules, she was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. The Court noted that, “On the basis of gender discrimination, the right of the petitioner being a woman cannot be curtailed by the Authority for promotion.”
The Court found that no gender-based distinction was there in the Tripura (Home) Jail Department’s promotion rules for post of Deputy Superintendent, so the petitioner could not be denied promotion. The Court noted that while the respondent rightly submitted that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, he could not justify the communication dated 1 May 2025, which was contrary to the recruitment rules and had also failed to comply with the earlier direction to consider the petitioner’s promotion. The Court further noted that the respondents, instead of complying with the earlier direction to consider the petitioner’s promotion, issued the communication dated 1 May 2025, rendering it unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the communication dated 1 May 2025 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura, as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail within 3 months, if found eligible under the applicable rules and norms.
[Bela Dutta v. State of Tripura, WP(C) No.317 of 2025, decided on 29-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Rajasree Purkayastha, Adv.
For the respondent: Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General, Pradyumna Gautam, Sr. GA
