TRHC010004132025

2026:THC:953

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.P.(C)No.156 of 2025

Sri Shishir Kanti Sarkar,

Son of Sri Sibendra Sarkar,

Resident of village-116 Bapuji Para,

North Badharghat, near Bapuji School,

P.O.-AD Nagar, P.S.-Amtali, Sub-Division-Sadar,

District-West Tripura, PIN-799003 aged about 38 years

……The Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Tripura,

Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary,

Department of General Administration (Personnnel & Training),

Government of Tripura,

Having his office at New Secretariat Complex,

Gorkhabasti, Agartala,

P.O.-Kunjaban, P.S.-New Capital Complex,

Sub-Division-Agartala, District- West Tripura.

2. The Commissioner & Secretary

To the Department of Higher Education,

Government of Tripura,

Having his office at New Secretariat Complex,

Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O.- Kunjaban,

P.S.-New Capital Complex, Sub-Division- Agartala,

District- West Tripura.

3. Tripura Public Service Commission ,

Represented by the Secretary,

Having office at Akhaura Road, Agartala,

District-West Tripura, PIN-799001.

4. The Secretary,

Tripura Public Service Commission,

Government of Tripura,

Having his office at Akhaura Road, Agartala,

District- West Tripura, PIN-799001.

5. The Under Secretary,

Tripura Public Service Commission,

Having its office at Akhaura Road,

Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN-799001

……Official Respondent(s)

6. Smt. Rita Debbarma,

Daughter of Nitai Debbarma,

Page 2 of 16

Resident of Village-Ujan Abhoynagar, East Hindi School,

Agartala, Municipal Corporation,

District- West Tripura, PIN-799005.

7. Sri Shyamal Debbarma, son of Dhanu Debbarma,

Resident of Village- Budharai Sardar Para,

P.O.- North Pulinpur, P.S.- Teliamura, Teliamura,

District- Khowai Tripura, PIN-799203.

Private Respondents…

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Adv,

Ms. Adwitia Chakraborty, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.,

Ms. Pinki Chakraborty, Adv.

Date of Hearing : 08.07.2026

Date of delivery of

Judgment and Order : 21.07.2026

Whether fit for

Reporting : YES

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

following relief/reliefs:

(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the official respondents

and each one of them, to show cause as to why a

Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall

not be issued for direct ing them, to transmit the

records, lying with them, for rendering substantive

and conscionable justice to the petitioner, and for

quashing/setting aside the impugned Orders dated

18.11.2024 & 24.02.2025 (Annexure -6 & 9

respectively supra);

(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the official respondents

and each one of them, to show cause as to why a

Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof,

shall not be issued for mandating/directing them, to

revoke/rescind the impugned Orders dated

18.11.2024 & 24.02.2025 (A nnexure-6 & 9

respectively supra) insofar as they exclude the

name of the petitioner, for promotion to the post of

Personal Assistant (PAI), and thereupon, for

mandating/directing them to grant retrospective

promotion, in favour of the petitioner, to the post of

Page 3 of 16

Personal Assistant (PAI) with effect from

18.11.2024, alongwith all consequential benefits;

(iii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;

(iv) After hearing the parties, pleased to make the

Rule Absolute in terms of i. to iv. Above.

(v) Costs of & incidental to this proceedings;

(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon’ble High Court

may deem fit and proper;

02. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Deb assisted

by Learned Counsel, Ms. A. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of

the petitioner and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. M.

Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State -respondents. None

appeared on behalf of the respondent No.6 & 7.

03. At the time of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that in pursuance

of the judgment dated 05.08.2022 passed by this Court in

W.P.(C) No.1378 of 2016, the petitioner was appointed to the

post of Personal Assistant (PA-II) under Tripura Government

Stenographer Service. In this regard, Learned Senior Counsel

drawn the attention of the Court relevant para No.30 of the said

judgment.

Learned Senior Counsel, thereafter, drawn the

attention of the Court the order of appointment in compliance of

the said judgment of this High Court dated 24.11.2020

(Annexure-3) and also submitted that by order dated

18.12.2020 (Annexure-4) his pay was fixed by the respective

Authority. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in

Annexure-3 i.e. the office order dated 24.11.2020 in para No.2

Page 4 of 16

it was specifically referred that the seniority position of the

present petitioner will be at serial No.16 among the

recommended candidates i.e. after Goutam Sarkar, bearing Roll

No.20530 and before Rita Debbarma, Roll No.21386. He also

submitted that in the seniority list (Annexure-5) the name of

said Goutam Sarkar was reflected in serial No.14, name of the

present petitioner was reflected in serial No.15 and the name of

said Rita Debbarma was reflected in serial No.16.

Learned Senior Counsel, thereafter submitted that by

order dated 18.11.2024 of the G.A. (P&T) Department, some

Junior Grade Stenographers (PA-II) were promoted to the post

of Personal Assistant-I (PA-I) on adhoc basis, wherein the name

of said Goutam Sarkar has been shown in serial No.14, name of

Rita Debbarma has been shown in serial No.15 and the name of

one Shyamal Debbarma has been shown in serial No.16 but the

name of present petitioner was not shown in the said office

order. Meaning thereby the petitioner was not recommende d for

promotion to the said post. In this regard, the petitioner

submitted one representation to the authority on 09.12.2024

(Annexure-8) and thereafter, the G.A. (P & T) Department on

24.02.2025 issued one office order (Annexure-9) wherein in

respect of promotion of the present petitioner following

observation was made:

“WHEREAS, the matter was referred to the TPSC

for their concurrence in connection with promotion

to the post of PA -I. In response, TPSC vide their

letter No.F.6(918) -SM/TPSC/2021/556 date d

Page 5 of 16

31.07.2024 observed: “required number of ACRs in

respect of Shri Shishir Kanti Sarkar, PA -II are not

available. His seniority may be re -assessed by the

DPC as per Para-2.2.1.”

Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel further

drawn the attention of the Court that by the said office order it

was observed that the DPC may reassess the seniority as per

para No.2.2.1.

Thereafter, Learned Senior Counsel also drawn the

attention of the Court Annexure-R/2, proceeding of the

meeting of the Selection Committee wherein in para No.11

following observation was made:

“11. In regard to the promotion of Shri Shishir Kanti

Sarkar, PA-II as mentioned at Sl. No.15 of Para-4, 9

& 10 above, it is reported in the Self Contained note

that Shri Sarkar has been appoi nted to the post of

Jr. Grade Stenographer (PA -II) vide Order

No.F.41(1)-GA(P&T)/2017 dated 24.11.2020 as per

Judgment & Order dated 5th August, 2020 of the

Hon’ble High Court of Tripura with retrospective

effect from 01-04-2016, as much required numbers

of ACRs in respect of Shri Sarkar is not available.”

Learned Senior Counsel, further drawn the attention

of the Court Para No.13 of the said minutes wherein it has been

mentioned as under:

“13. Going through the Para 9 & 10 above and on

the basis of over all ACRs grading of the

stenographers coming in the zone of the

consideration, the Selection Committee recommends

the following Personal Assistant (PA -II) for

promotion to the post of Personal Assistant (PA -I)

of the Tripura Government Stenographers’ Servi ce

on ad-hoc basis with prospective date as one time

measure subject to final outcome of SLP(C) pending

before the Hon’ble Supreme Supreme Court of India

and other terms & conditions as laid down in the

Notification No.F.2(24)-GA(P&T)/2021 dated 22 -06-

2021.”

Page 6 of 16

He further drawn the attention of the Court referring

the Annexure-R/3 i.e. the communication dated 31.07.2024

written by Controller of Exam, TPSC to the Under Secretary,

G.A. (P&T) Department wherein in para No. vi of the said

communication, following assertions were made:

“vi. Required number of ACRs in respect of Shri

Shishir Kanti Sarkar, PA -II are not available. His

suitability may be re -assessed by the DPC

Committee as per para 2.2.1(b) of the revised

procedure of DPC as adopted by the State Govt. in

the GA(P&T) Deptt. Vide Memo No.F.11(1) -

GA(P&T)/72 dated 14th June, 2024. ”

Referring the same, he submitted that in the said

communication TPSC also referred to follow para No.2.2.1 (b) of

the Revised Procedure as adopted by the Government vide

memo dated 14.06.2004:

“2.2.1.(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of

the officers for promotion on the basis of their

service record and with particular reference to the

CRs for 5 preceding years. However, in cases where

the required qualifying service is more than 5 years,

the DPC should see the record with particular

reference to the CRs for the years equal to the

required qualifying service. (If more than one CR

has been written for a particular year, all the CRs for

the relevant year shall be considere d together as

the CR for one year.”

After that another meeting of the Selection

Committee held on 25.10.2024 wherein the case of the

petitioner was taken up for considering which would be reflected

from para No.4 of Annexure -R/6 but finally, his name was

considered in view of the observation made in para No.5 of the

said resolution:

“5. It is reported through self -contained Note that

another review DPC was held on 10.09.2024. As per

decision of the said committee, opinion of the Law

Department has been s ought towards eligibility of

Page 7 of 16

promotion of Shri Shishir Kanti Sarkar who has been

appointed to the post of PA -II vide Order dated

24.11.2020 with retrospective effect from

01.04.2016 as per verdict of the Hon’ble High Court

of Tripura.”

Further, he also drawn the attention of the Court

referring para No.7 of the said minutes of the meeting wherein

following assertion was made:

“7. As per guidelines laid down in Para 2:1:1 of the

Office Memorandum issued vide No.F.22011/5/86 -

Estt.D. dated 10th March, 1989 of the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

as adopted by the Govt. of Tripura vide General

Administration (Personnel & Training) Department

Memorandum No.F.11(1) -GA(P&T)/72 dated 14 -06-

2004, for 157 (one hundred and fifty -seven)

vacancies, 318 (three hundred and eighteen)

eligible Stenographers may come in the zone of

consideration for promotion to the post of Personal

Assistant (PA-I). At present only 17 (seventeen)

men are available in the zone of consideration for

promotion in the grade of Personal Assistant (PA -I),

apart from this there is no other persons who may

come under the zone of consideration. ”

Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel

submitted that the Selection Committee did not follow the

guideline laid down in the memorandum dated 10.03.1989 of

the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances & Pensions when the TPSC by the earlier

communication dated 31.07.2024 (Annexure-R/3) observed

to follow para No.2.2.1 (b) of the said memorandum dat ed

10.03.1989 of the Government of India. Thus, arbitrarily

refused to promote the petitioner and finally, Learned Senior

Counsel submitted that in view of the said notification dated

10.03.1989 the present petitioner was eligible for promotion to

the post of PA-I. So, Learned Senior Counsel urged for allowing

Page 8 of 16

this writ petition on the ground that the same was violative of

doctrine of proportionment.

04. The respondent-States has contested the case by

filing counter-affidavit. In para No.5, 6 & 7 the respo ndent-

States have made the following assertions:

“5. That, in reply to para 2.2 to 2.7 of the writ

petition, I say that in compliance with the judgment

& Oder dated 05 -08-2020 in W.P. (C) No.1378 of

2016 and based on the recommendation made by

the TPSC vide their letter dated 21 -09-2020, Shri

Shishir Kanti Sarkar (petitioner) was appointed to

the post of PA-II Stenographer vide Order dated 24 -

11-2020 with effect from 01 -04-2016. He actually

joined the post on 25 -11-2020. His service was

confirmed on comp letion of probation period with

effect from 22-11-2022. Thus, the petitioner has not

given completed 4 (four) years of actual service

while DPC meeting was convened for promotion to

the post of PA-I, though 4 (four) ACRs might have

been there including the one ACR for 2020-2021.

It is pertinent to mention here that referring the

relevant part of operative portion of the Judgment &

Order dated 05-08-2020 passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Tripura W.P. (C) No.1378 of 2016 (Shri

Shishir Kanti Sarkar Vrs the State of Tripura &

Others), it is to mention that the State Government

in compliance to the said Judgment & Order dated

05-08-2020 had appointed the petitioner with the

benefits given for limited purpose. No further

compliance is stated to be pending. This is to say

that compliance made already is full and final.

It is also clear that the seniority inter-se between

the candidates in PA-II has been fixed on the basis

of merit position in selection process and it does not

depend upon the date of appointment or joining.

Under the above facts and circumstance, it could

be said by the Judgment & Order of the Hon'ble High

Court there has been a "deemed service" created

only for the limited purposes and it does not create

actual service period or number of regula r service

years i.e. required to be fulfilled for the purpose of

consideration for promotion to another grade of the

cadre service. The limited purposes as stated by the

Hon'ble High Court has not

encompassed/contemplated the matter of

promotion to another grade/higher posts. This can

be deduced from the fact that actual benefit of pay

and allowances were given from the date of joining.

If there has been direction of back wages for the

period between the appointment of other candidates

and the actual joining of petitioner as consequence

to the appointment in compliance to the Judgment &

Order, there could have been scope for another

Page 9 of 16

interpretation. Moreover, for the promotion purpose,

the rules require to have actual regular service for 8

(eight) years which the DPC is not empowered to

violate by itself.

6. That, in reply to para 2.8 & 2.9 of the writ

petition, I say that it is a fact that the petitioner has

been appointed to the post of PA -II Stenographer

vide Order dated 24 -11-2020 with retrospective

effect i.e. with effect from 01-04-2016 in compliance

with the Judgment & Order dated 05 -08-2020 in

W.P. (C) No.1378 of 2016 (Annexure -1 to the writ

petition). But the said retrospective appointment

was for the limited purpose i.e. for seniority and

notional pay fixation. His actual benefits were given

from the date of appointment as per Judgment &

Order dated 05 -08-2020. Therefore, while

convening DPC meeting on 25 -10-2024 the name of

the petitioner did not come for consideration of

promotion to the post of PA -1 as the petitioner has

not rendered 8 (eight) years of actual service which

is required for promotion to the post of PA -I.

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is

strongly denied.

7. That, in reply to para 2.10 & 2.11 of the writ

petition, I say that the contention of the petitioner

is strongly denied by the answering respondent.

Point 2.2.1 of OM dated 10 -03-1989 (Annexure 10

to the writ petition) laying down procedure to be

observed by the DPC cannot be read to mean or

interpret that the requiremen t of having minimum 8

(eight) years regular service (which would mean

actual service) would get reduced for coming within

the zone of consideration for promotion, even

though, all the available CRs which are is lesser

number (then normal requirement) shoul d be taken

into account by the DPC. This only enables the DPC

to consider the available CRs where due to some

reasons CRs were not written during the relevant

period of service which otherwise be equal to or

more than number of years of actual service of a n

employee as may be required under the recruitment

rules or service rules. However, it does not

contemplate to include any period when the

employee was not in the actual service to the

employer.”

The TPSC also has filed separate counter-affidavit. In

para No.4 the TPSC has made the following assertions:

“4. That with reference to the statements made in

paragraph No.2.6 of the writ petition, the answering

respondents state that the Tripura Public Service

Commission received a proposal from the General

Administration (Personal & Training) Dept.,

Government of Tripura for consideration towards

promotion in respect of PA -II (Jr. Grade

Stenographer) to the post of PA -1 (Personal

Assistant) on ad-hoc basis as one time measure and

stated the recommendation of th e Selection

Committee in its meeting held on 26.06.2024 has

been accepted by the State Government and also

Page 10 of 16

requested to concur the said recommendation of the

Selection Committee vide letter No.F.37(2) -

GA(P&T)/2011 dated 22.07.2024.

Thereafter the Tripura Public Service

Commission sent a letter bearing No.F.6(918) -

SM/TPSC/2021/556 dated 31.07.2024 to the

GA(P&T) Dept., Govt. of Tripura and requested to

clarify the following points-

i. As per Office Memo No.F.85(133) -

SW/DC/2017(Vol.III)/PART/2545

dated 07/09/2 021 issued by the SW

& SE Department, Govt. of Tripura,

4% reservation shall also apply to be

filled up by promotion in the cadre

strength for persons with benchmark

disabilities. As such up -to-date

inspection of 100-point roster for the

post of PA-I (Personal Assistant) of

the Tripura Government

Stenographers' Service to be furnish

by inclusion of PH vacancy.

ii. The Department may confirm

whether there is any category of

persons with Disabilities according to

seniority list.

iii. As regards, promotion in respect o f

Shri Siddhartha Banerjee, PA -II

(SL.No.1 of seniority position) that a

minor penalty of withholding of

2(two) increments without

cumulative effect was imposed upon

him vide order dated 27 -08-2021. It

may be confirmed whether Shri

Banerjee, PA-II has been exonerated

from the Departmental proceeding,

copy of which to be furnished.

iv. Initial appointment to the post

meant for SC or ST or subsequently

appointed any higher post meant for

SC or ST to be shown in respect to all

individual incumbent coming under

zone of consideration.

v. On perusal of ACR grading it appears

that out of 8(eight) years, Shri

Siddhartha Banerjee, PA -II has got

2- 'Very Good', 2 - 'Good', 2-

'Average', 1- 'Satisfactory' & 1 -

"Fair". As per Notification No.F.3(2) -

GA(P&T)/CON/18 dated 12th Apri l,

2019 of the GA(P&T) Department,

Govt. of Tripura how Shri Banerjee,

PA-II has been graded as 'Fit' for

promotion as per marking method.

vi. Required number of ACRs in respect

of Shri Shishir Kanti Sarkar, PA -II

are not available. His suitability may

be re-assessed by the DPC

Committee as per para 2.2.1(b) of

the revised procedure of DPC as

adopted by the State Govt. in the

GA(P&T) Deptt. Vide Memo

No.F.11(1)-GA(P&T)/72 dated 14th

June, 2004.

Page 11 of 16

vii. After scrutiny it appears that ACRs of

Shri Siddhartha Banerjee , PA-II are

below "Benchmark". Authority may

give clarification whether it is

informed to the incumbent concerned

and completed other formalities by

Deptt.

viii. In response the GA(P&T) Dept., Govt.

of Tripura stated that as per

observation of TPSC,

clarification/documents are

furnished. In which it is stated in

para 1.vi. as follows:-

"As regards observation at para -vi,

it is to mention that on receipt of

the observation from TPSC a

Review Selection Committee

Meeting has been considered

necessary. Accordingly, a review

Section Committee meeting has

been held on 25.10.2024. But, the

Selection Committee has not

recommended the case of

promotion of Shri Shishir Kanti

Sarkar".

The GA(P&T) Dept. also stated the

recommendation of the Review

Selection Committee in its meeting

held on 25.10.2024 has been

accepted by the State Government

and also requested to concur the said

recommendation of the Review

Selection Committee by a letter No.

F.37(2)-GA(P&T)/2011 dated

12.11.2024.

Thereafter, the Tripura Public Service

Commission concurred the proposal

of the Department for promotion to

the post of PA-I (Personal Assistant),

Group-B Non-Gazetted under the

GA(P&T) Dept., Govt. of Tripura on

ad-hoc basis as one time measure as

recommended by the Review

Selection Committee Meet ing held on

25.10.2024 subject to the condition

as mentioned in Notification No.

F.2(24)-GA(P&T)/2021 dated

22.06.2021 vide letter No.F.6(918) -

SM/TPSC/2021/1086 dated

16.11.2024.

A copy of the proposal letter dated

22.07.2024, Copy of the proceedings

of the meeting of the Selection

Committee dated 26.06.2024, Copy

of the letter dated 31.07.2024, copy

of the related portion of the DPC

procedure, copy of the letter dated

12.11.2024, copy of the proceedings

of the review Selection Committee

meeting dated 25.1 0.2024 and a

copy of the concurrence letter dated

16.11.2024 are annexed hereto and

Page 12 of 16

those are respectively marked as

Annexure-R/1, R/2, R/3, R/4, R/5,

R/6 & R/7.”

Thus, both the State-respondents and TPSC by their

counter-affidavit have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition

filed by the petition. The petitioner filed rejoinder. In para

No.6.2 following assertion is made:

“6.2 It is most humbly and

respectfully submitted that the

queries recorded by the TPSC -

respondents were clarificatory in

nature, however, once the GA (P&T)

Department, Government of Tripura

furnished clarifications and a Review

Selection Committee met on

25.10.2024, the TPSC -respondents

were obliged to satisfy itself that the

DPC had applied the remedial

measures mandated by Para 2. 2.1(c)

of the OM dated 10.03.1989 (i.e.

consideration of earlier CRs, lower -

grade CRs or all available records) in

respect of any missing ACRs, it is

further submitted that the record on

file does not disclose that such an

exercise was carried out before

concurrence, and therefore, in the

absence of that exercise the

concurrence dated 16.11.2024 is

vitiated as perfunctory.”

05. I have heard both the sides and perused the writ

petition and the documents annexed along with the counter -

affidavit and the documents filed by the state-respondent and

also the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post

of Personal Assistant-II (PA-II), Group-C, Non-gazetted vide

order dated 24.11.2020 in pursuance of the judgment passed by

this Court on 05.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No.1378 of 2015 and his

pay and allowances was notionally fixed w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and

accordingly, his seniority was maintained.

Page 13 of 16

Now, here in this writ petition we are to see as to

whether the petitioner was arbitrarily denied the promotion by

the respondent-Authority. It is the admitted position that his

name was taken into consideration for promotion in the meeting

of the Selection Committee dated 26.06.2024 and the

recommendation was communicated (Annexure-R/2) to the

TPSC and the TPSC vide communication dated 31.07.2024

(Annexure-R/3) communicated the Government to

reconsider/re-asses the matter in pursuance of para No.2.2.1(b)

of the revised procedure of DPC as adopted by the State

Government in G.A.(P & T) Department vide memo dated

14.06.2004. But in a subsequent meeting of the Selection

Committee dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure-R/6). His matter was

disallowed by the Selection Committee in view of the

observation of the Law Department as stated supra. Now let us

see the relevant paras of office memo dated 10.03.1989

(Annexure-10):

“2.2.1. (b) The DPC should assess

the suitability of the officers for

promotion on the basis of their

service record and with particular

reference to the CRs for 5 preced -ing

years. However, in cases where the

required qualifying service is more

than 5 years, the DPC shouid see the

record with particular reference to

the CRs for the years equal to the

required qualifying service. (If more

than one CR has been written for a

particular year, all the CRs for the

relevant year shall be considered

together as the CR for one year).

(c) Where one or more CRs have not

been written for any reason during

the relevant period, the DPC should

consider the CRs of the years

preceding the period in question and

Page 14 of 16

if in any case even these are not

available the DPC should take the

CRs of the lower grade into account

to complete the number of CRs

required to be considered as per (b)

above. If this is also not possible, all

the available CRs should be taken

into account.”

On perusal of the aforesaid observation, it appears

that the Departmental Promotion Committee at the time of

making observation although considered the said memo dated

10.03.1989 (Annexure-10) but failed to apply Clause-c of para

No.2.2.1 of the said memorandum dated 10.03.1989 which

clearly speaks that “where one or more CRs have not been

written for any reason during the relevant period, the DPC

should consider the CRs of the years preceding the period in

question and if in case even these are not grade into account to

complete the number of CRs required to be considered as per

(b) above. If this is also not possible, all the available CRs

should be taken into account.” But here in the case at hand the

Selection Committee failed to observe the aforesaid relevant

paragraph of the said memo dated 10.03.1989 at the time of

deciding the case of the present petitioner. Thus, came to the

observation that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to

the post of PA-I which in the considered opinion of this Court

was not proper because as per the seniority list the other

candidates who are above in rank to the petitioner and his

junior were given promotion depriving him by the respective

Department, wherein the seniority of the petitioner was

determined as per judgment passed by this Court on

Page 15 of 16

05.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No.1378 of 2016 and the State-

respondents have not challenged that judgment, thus, the same

has attained finality. So, after going through both the sides, it

appears that the respondent-Authority failed to consider the

promotion of the petitioner to the post of PA-I.

Learned Addl. G.A. in course of hearing of argument

failed to satisfy the Court by showing any extent rule as to why

the case of the petitioner was not considered and also regarding

application of said clause 2.2.1 of the office memorandum dated

10.03.1989 of the G overnment of India, Department of

Personnel & Training, because by the office order dated

24.02.2025 (Annexure-9) as already stated his case was

rejected on the ground that he had not rendered the qualified

period of service as per the Tripura Government Stenographers'

Service Rules, 1977 wherein in the said office order, it was

specifically observed to consider para No.2.2.1 of the said office

memo dated 10.03.1989 (Annexure-10).

06. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner

is hereby allowed. The order dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure -9)

issued by the GA (P&T) Department is accordingly, stands

quashed. The respondent-authority be asked to consider the

promotion of the petitioner from the post of PA-II to PA-I within

a period of three months in the light of office memorandum

dated 10.03.1989 pursuant to para No.2.2.1(c) (Annexure -10)

of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of

Page 16 of 16

Tripura and to consider giving effect of the seniority of the

petitioner from the date when his immediate s enior, Sri,

Gautam Sarkar and immediate junior, Ms. Rita Debbarma were

promoted to the post of PA-I.

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition

stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed

of.

JUDGE

Purnita