Judgment & Order
1. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Anthony Debbarma appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also, heard Learned Advocate General, Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Promod Sahu appearing on behalf of the State-respondents and Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttom Roy Barman assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Koomar Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.6, 9, 10 and 11. Further heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Somik Deb assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Jishan Samed appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 and 12.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing Notification dated 13.02.2026 insofar as it grants Full Duty Charge to junior officers;
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners strictly in accordance with finalized seniority;
iii) Direct the Respondents to frame objective criteria for FDC assignments;
iv) As to why such other order or orders should not be passed so as to give full reliefs to the petitioners and upon causes shows to make the Rule absolute;
v) Pass such further order(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
For which act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.
3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court that the present petitioners are/were senior in service to the contesting respondents and they were appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 2003 and subsequently they were promoted as Assistant Engineer(TES-IV) in 2006 and 2008 and the petitioners were thereafter promoted to the post of Executive Engineer(TES-III) on ad hoc basis in the year 2021 vide notifications dated 17.08.2021 and 04.12.2021 issued by PWD. It was further submitted that the final seniority list of the Assistant Engineers (TES-IV) was published on 03.06.2015 and attained finality and no revisional modification has been made till date. On 13.02.2026, the PWD Department by a notification (Annexure-9) granted Full Duty Charge of Superintending Engineers to certain officers who are/were junior to the petitioners and according to petitioners that was contrary to the memorandum dated 24.09.2020 issued by the Finance Department.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the present petitioners have no personal grievances against any of the proforma-respondents and they are not claiming FDC but the same order was issued in violation of the memorandum dated 24.09.2020 issued by the Finance Department. Referring the same, Learned Counsel further submitted that the said memorandum specifically states that FDC shall be allowed on the basis of suitability, eligibility and seniority but since the contesting respondents are junior to the present petitioners and they have given the benefit of FDC by the said notification dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure-9), as such, the present petitioners have been prejudiced. Thus, Learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed for issuing rule upon the respondents to set aside the said notification dated 13.02.2026.
It was fairly submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioners that challenging the said notification, they did not file any representation to the authority raising their grievances before filing of the writ petition rather they directly approached to the High Court and this High Court till disposal of the matter granted stay vide order dated 25.03.2026.
4. This writ petition has been contested by the State-respondents and other respondents. The State-respondents denied the entire assertions of the petitioner and in para Nos.9 and 10 of their counter affidavit, the State-respondents have asserted the following facts:
“09. That, in regards to the statements made in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that Full Duty Charge (FDC) is an administrative arrangement, not a promotion-no right to seniority. The Memorandum bearing reference No.F.1(15)-FIN(EXPDT-II)/2019/4107-4357 dated 24th September, 2020, issued by the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura regarding the clarification on honorarium for holding the Full Duty Charge of higher posts and the instructions issued by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, clearly postulates the following:
(i) Any officer to hold FDC of higher post is not promotion and it is only an administrative arrangement of Temporary Nature.
(ii) As and when regular promotion take place and post is no longer available, the officer will continue to hold his original post.
(iii) Moreover, decision to allow FDC to of Higher post to officers shall be solely based on their eligibility, suitability and seniority.
(iv) It does not confer any right to regular promotion;
(v) It does not alter the substantive cadre strength or the reservation roster.
In such view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners' claim of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived as no promotion has been granted.
A copy of the Memorandum No.F.1(15)-FIN(EXPDT-II)/2019/4107-4357 dated 24th
September, 2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1.
Further, promotion is not a legal entitlement of an employee but it is an accrued right to be considered during his/her service tenure as per guidelines framed in the respective Recruitment Rules. In the instant case, due to some legitimate deadlock in the operation of Section 4(2) & Rule 9(2) of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 (as amended), the promotion under the services of the State Government had remained suspended since 01/04/2017 vide Memorandum bearing reference No.F.2(24)/GA(P&T)/05(Vol-II), dated 01/04/2017 for which candidature of the petitioners couldn't be considered prior to 2017.
A copy of the Memorandum bearing reference No.F.2(24)/GA(P&T)/05(Vol-II), dated 01/04/2017 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/2.
It is further submitted that, in a similarly fitted Case the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura vide common Judgment dated 26/02/2020 delivered in WP(C) 20/2020, WP(C) 21/2020, WP(C) 22/2020, WP(C) 23/2020, WP(C) 24/2020 has disposed of the case with the observation that "Grievance of the petitioners is that though they are qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Tripura Engineering Service (TES) Grade-III from TES Grade-IV which post they are holding, the respondents are not granting such promotions since long.
The short defence of the respondents is that on account of pendency of SLP before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the full Bench of this Court in case of Jayanti Chakraborty and others and the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court, it is not possible for the State administration to proceed further with the exercise of granting promotions to the petitioners. The interim orders passed by the Supreme Court are brought to my notice. The first interim order is dated 27.07.2015 in which the Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. However, the data for collecting the information as postulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Nagaraj would continue. Further order was passed on 13.02.2017 where status quo was modified partially to the effect that the report of the State Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission may be placed before the Cabinet for appropriate decision. Further order was passed on 14.11.2017 when the Supreme Court referred the issue to larger Bench.
In view of these facts, it is not possible to issue a direction as prayed for in these petitions. Reference made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners to a promotional order dated 07.12.2018 promoting few TES Grade-IV officers to TES Grade-III service. This is, however, explained by the respondents in the reply stating that by virtue of the judgment of this Court in case of Tribal Engineers' Society, Tripura dated 31.03.2014 in WP(C) No.301 of 2006 which was confirmed by the Division Bench later on, in favour of the petitioners therein the Government had to reckon their past service for the purpose of seniority. It was on account of this that these persons were given promotions with retrospective effect which is vastly different from the case of the petitioners.
Under the circumstances, at this stage, no directions can be issued to the respondents for granting promotions to the petitioners. However, once the dispute is resolved before the Supreme Court, I am sure the State would take up the exercise for filling up the promotional posts in full earnest.
With these observations, all the petitions are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
A copy of the common Judgment dated 26/02/2020 delivered in WP(C) 20/2020, WP(C) 21/2020, WP(C) 22/2020, WP(C) 23/2020, WP(C) 24/2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3.
It is already stated by the Hon'ble High Court in a common Judgment dated 26/02/2020 delivered in WP(C) 20/2020, WP(C) 21/2020, WP(C) 22/2020, WP(C) 23/2020, WP(C)
24/2020 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the interim Order dated 27/07/2015 directed the parties to maintain status quo.
Therefore, the operative portion of the interim Order dated 27/07/2015 delivered in SLP(C) No.19765-19767/2015 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors. is reproduced as "In the meanwhile, the parties will maintain status quo. However, the data of collating the information as postulated in Natarajan's case may continue".
It is further submitted that, till date the case bearing SLP(C) No.19765-19767/, The State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors. is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
A copy of the interim Order dated 27/07/2015 delivered in SLP(C) No.19765-19767/2015 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/4.
A copy of the present status of SLP(C) No.19765-19767/2015, The State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/5.
It is also an admitted position that due to the dead lock in reservation policy, the Government cumulative performance index had been badly affected. Therefore, in order to augment the efficiency of the State administration, Government of Tripura vide Notification No.F.2(24)-GA(P&T)/2021, dated 22/06/2021 of the Deputy Secretary, GA(P&T) Department had decided to fill up vacant posts by way of ad-hoc promotion as one-time measure subject to outcome of SLP(C) No.19765-19767 of 2015, lying before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, the petitioners (excluding Sl Nos. 2 &17) and the Private Respondents have got promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer, Civil, TES, Grade-III on ad-hoc basis vide Notification No.F6(67)-PWD(E)/2021/7069-368 dt. 17th August' 2021 (Annexure-1 to the connected Writ Petition).
A copy of the Notification No.F.2(24)-GA(P&T)/2021, dated 22/06/2021 of the Deputy Secretary, GA(P&T) Department is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/6.
That, Public Works Department (PWD) is one of the major Departments in the state dealing with the construction of infrastructure development works like major roads, bridges, buildings, water resource, drinking water and sanitation and national highways etc. The works of the Department have been increased in many folds including execution of major Buildings of other Department as Deposit Works. PWD has 6(six) wings viz, Roads & Bridges(R&B), Buildings, Water Resources (WR), Drinking Water & Sanitation (DWS), PMGSY & National Highways, headed by 01(one) Chief Engineer in each wing. In addition thereto, one constituted body viz. TH&CB also exists under PWD.
Furthermore, it is submitted that the total sanctioned strength of the Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II is 53 (UR-28, SC-9, ST-16) including deputation, training, higher study & leave reserve under Public Works Department, Government of Tripura as per Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014). The aforesaid post is promotional post & shall be filled by the Officers who holds TES Grade-III Post & have rendered not less that 07 (Seven) years of regular service in the grade and have at least degree in an appropriate branch of engineering from a recognised University or it's equivalent academic qualification as described in Rule 15(2) Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014).
A copy of the sanctioned Strength of Superintending Engineer, Civil, TES Grade-II as per Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/7.
A Copy of the Rule 15(2) of Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/8.
In the latter part of 2025, there were only 22 (Twenty Two) officials who were holding the posts of Superintending Engineer either on Ad-hoc (now regular) basis or, on Full Duty Charge basis. Out of which 01 (one) no. of official belonging to SC category is holding the post of the Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II on Ad-hoc (now regular) basis, & 07 (Seven) nos. of officials belonging to SC category is holding the posts of Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-III (without change in grade) on Full Duty Charge (FDC) basis. Therefore, out of 09 (nine) sanctioned strength against the SC category, 08(Eight) Nos. of Officials belonging to SC category is holding the posts of Superintending Engineer.
On the other hand, 04 (Four) nos. of officials belonging to ST category is holding the posts of Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II on Ad-hoc (now regular) basis, & 08 (Eight) nos. of officials belonging to ST category is holding the post of the Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-III (without change in grade) on Full Duty Charge (FDC) basis. Therefore, out of 16 (Sixteen) sanctioned strength against the ST category, 12 (Twelve) Nos. of Officials belonging to ST category is holding the posts of Superintending Engineer.
On the other hand, none of the officials belonging to UR category is holding any post of Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II on Ad-hoc (now regular) basis, & only 02 (Two) nos. of officials belonging to UR category is holding the post of the Superintending Engineer by TES Grade-III (without change in grade) on Full Duty Charge (FDC) basis. Therefore, out of 28 (Twenty Eight) sanctioned strength against the UR category, only 02 (Two) Nos. of Officials belonging to UR category are presently holding the posts of Superintending Engineer on FDC.
Status of Man-in-Position Vs. Sanction Strength of Superintending Engineer, Civil reflected as on 31-12-2025 is as follows:-
| Sanction Strength (53) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 9 | 16 | 28 |
| Man-in-Position(22) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 01(Regular) | 04(Regular) | 00 (Regular) |
| 07(FDC) | 08(FDC) | 02(FDC) ** |
| 08 (Total) | 12 (Total) | 02 (Total) |
| Vacant post (31) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 01 | 04 | 26 |
A copy of the Superannuation Notice published vide Memorandum No.F.6(5)-PWD(GE)/2020 dated 12/06/2024 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/9.
A copy of the Superannuation Notice published vide Memorandum No.F.6(5)-PWD(GE)/2020 dated 25/03/2026 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/10.
Further, at present, none of the officials belonging to the posts of Executive Engineer, TES Grade-III (both the Petitioner Nos.1 to 20 as well as the Private Respondent Nos.5 to 12) were found to be eligible for holding the post of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-II inasmuch as per Rule 15(2) of TES Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014). The conditions of eligibility for selection for the Grade-II posts shall be filled by officers who hold Grade-III posts and have rendered not less than 07 (Seven) years regular service. But, in the instant case, both the Private Respondents & the Petitioners (except Petitioner Nos. 2 & 17) were promoted to the posts of Executive Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-III from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-IV on Ad-hoc (now regular) basis in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 15,600/-to Rs.39,100/-, Pay Band -4, Grade Pay: Rs.7000/-, i.e., at Level-17 of Tripura State Pay Matrix-2018 with prospective date subject to final outcome of SLP (C) No.19765-19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Notification No.F6(67)-PWD(E)/2021/7069-368 dated 17th August, 2021 (Annexure-1 to the connected Writ Petition), which has been subsequently regularized with retrospective effect vide Notification No.6(15)-PWD (GE)/2025(DEC)/I/1136707/2025 dated 31/12/2025 (Annexure-3 to the connected Writ Petition). However, the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 17 were promoted to the posts of Executive Engineer (Civil), TES Grade- III from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-IV on Ad-hoc (now regular) basis on latter date, vide Notification No. F6(67)-PWD(E)/2021/14732-831 dated 4th December, 2021(Annexure-2 to the connected Writ Petition).
From the above factual prelude, it can be safely concluded that none of the Petitioners or the Private Respondents would become eligible to hold the substantive posts of Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II, before 18th August, 2028. Therefore, it is stated that the question of violating promotion-based seniority does not arise when no one is eligible for regular promotion.
Now-a-days, the works of the Public Works Department have been increased in many folds. It has become merely possible for holding charges of 2/3 posts of Superintending Engineer by a single person. Therefore, considering the exigencies of the state of affairs and to augment the efficiency of the developmental work, and also, for the interest of Public Service, the Governor of Tripura was pleased, vide the Notification bearing reference No.F.6(59)/PWD(GE) /2026/1/19696-795 dated 13.02.2026 (Annexeure-9 to the connected Writ Petition), ordering to hold the posts of Superintending Engineer on FDC basis to those 08(eight) Nos. of Suitable Private Respondents, who were holding the substantial posts of Executive Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-III, namely Shri Subrata Deb Sarkar (UR), Smt. Maitree Majumder (UR), Shri Debabarata Debbarma (ST recommended against UR Category by own merit), Shri Kingshuk Sarkar (SC recommended against UR Category by own merit), Shri Sena Charan Jamatia (ST recommended against UR Category by own merit), Shri Subrata Roy (UR), Smt. Ruma Das (SC recommended against UR Category by own merit) & Shri Rajib Paul (UR) to maintain as stop-gap arrangement.
Now as on 13-02-2026 i.e., after publication of the Notification No.F.6(59)/PWD(GE)/2026/1/19696-795 dated 13.02.2026 the status of Man-in-Position Vs. Sanction Strength of Superintending Engineer, Civil is as follows:-
| Sanction Strength (53) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 9 | 16 | 28 |
| Man-in-Position(33) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 01(Regular) | 04(Regular) | 00(Regular) |
| 2+7=09(FDC) | 1+8=09(FDC) | 8+2=10 (FDC) ** |
| 10 (Total) | 13 (Total) | 10 (Total) |
| Vacant post (20) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| Exhausted | 03 | 18 |
It is likely to be assumed from the Memorandum No.F.1(15)-FIN(EXPDT-II)/2019/4107-4357 dated 24th September, 2020 of the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura under the subject captioned as "Clarification on honorarium for holding Full Duty Charge of Higher Post" that decision to allow Full Duty Charge of Higher post to officers shall be solely based on their eligibility, suitability and seniority.
As already stated supra, in the instant case, all the Private Respondents as well as the Petitioner except Sl. No 2 & 17 assumed the posts of Executive Engineer, TES Grade-III on Ad-hoc basis on 17th August, 2021 (later regularized with retrospective effect). Therefore, as per Rule 15(2) of the Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014) none of them were found eligible to hold the posts of Superintending Engineers Grade-II. Therefore, the word "Eligibility" doesn't play a major role in the impugned Notification dated 13/02/2026 (Annexeure-9 to the connected Writ Petition). Therefore, the question of violating promotion-based seniority does not arise when no one is eligible for regular promotion.
Furthermore, no inter-se seniority was determined while granting the Ad-hoc promotions for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-III published vide Notification dated 17/08/2021 & 04/12/2021 (Annexeures-1 & 2 respectively to the connected Writ Petition). It thus follows there from that seniority position for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-III (Degree Holder) is not possible to be furnished before the final outcome of SLP (C) No.19765-19767 of 2015, presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the Seniority List of Assistant Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-IV (Degree Holder) published vide Memorandum dated 03/06/2015 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) should not be taken into consideration while giving full duty charge for the next to next higher post i.e., for the post of Superintending Engineer.
Further, the word "Suitable" defined in the Memorandum No.F.1(15)-FIN(EXPDT-II)/2019/4107-4357 dated 24th September, 2020 was correctly and appropriately assessed and was given utmost importance while giving the Full Duty Charge to those Private Respondents against their own merit.
As it is already supra that out of 28 Nos. of the sanctioned posts of Superintending Engineer (Civil), TES Grade-II against UR category only 02(two) officials belonging to UR category namely Shri Sushanta Kumar Nath (date of superannuation-30/04/2026) & Smt. Mousumi Purkayastha (date of superannuation-30/05/2027) are holding the posts of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on FDC basis, which means that their grade remained unchanged as TES Grade-III and holding the officiating post of Superintending Engineer (Civil).
In the same manner, the Private Respondent No.6, namely, Smt. Maitreyee Majumder was found suitable to hold the post of Superintending Engineer, State Water Information Centre(SWIC) on FDC basis. In this regard, it is to be mentioned here that SWIC, Tripura has been created by the Govt. in June 2024. SWIC will be headed by one Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II. But, from the very beginning, the said post was lying vacant and none of the officers from PWD was holding the said post. During the month of March, 2025, Shri Subhash Chandra Datta (UR), Superintending Engineer (on FDC), engaged as Monitoring Cell, PWD(WR) was Superintending Engineer, State Water Information Centre(SWIC), as additional charge. Said Shri Datta retired from Government Service in the month of January, 2026, and accordingly, the charge of Superintending Engineer, State Water Information Centre(SWIC) was given to Shri Sushanta Kumar Nath (UR), Superintending Engineer(on FDC), O/o the Chief Engineer (WR), being an additional charge, as stop-gap arrangement. Therefore, Smt. Maitreyee Majumder was found suitable & ordered to hold the charge of Superintending Engineer, State Water Information Centre (SWIC) to relieve Sushanta Kumar Nath (UR), Superintending Engineer(on FDC), from the additional charge as stop-gap arrangement without change in her existing grade i.e., TES Grade-III.
Similarly, the Private Respondent No.7, namely, Shri Debabrata Debbarma was found suitable to hold the post of Superintending Engineer, NH Circle, Agartala. It is further submitted that, Shri Paramanik Jamatia, Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II, O/o the Chief Engineer PWD(NH), who was holding the additional charge of Superintending Engineer, PWD (NH) Circle, Agartala, after the superannuation of Shri Rajat Paul, Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-III (on FDC) since 29.02.2024. Shri Rajat Paul (UR) was also holding the full duty charge of Superintending Engineer & this post of Superintending Engineer, PWD (NH) has been continuing with an additional charge since 1st March, 2024. Therefore, Shri Debabrata Debbarma was found suitable & ordered to hold the charge of Superintending Engineer, PWD(NH) Circle to relieve said Shri Paramanik Jamatia, Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II from the additional charge as stop-gap arrangement without change in his existing grade i.e., TES Grade-III.
Similarly, the Private Respondent No. 8, namely, Shri Kingshuk Sarkar was found suitable to hold the post of Superintending Engineer, PWD (DWS) Circle, Kumarghat. It is further submitted that Shri Shyamal Kumar Das, Superintending Engineer (On FDC) PWD (WR) Circle, Kumarghat, who was holding the additional charge of Superintending Engineer, PWD (DWS) Circle, Kumarghat after the superannuation of Shri Sanjoy Paul, Superintending Engineer(on FDC) since 31.01.2026. Therefore, Shri Kingshuk Sarkar was found suitable & ordered to hold the charge of Superintending Engineer, PWD (DWS) Circle, Kumarghat to relieve Shri Shyamal Kumar Das, Superintending Engineer (On FDC) PWD (WR) Circle from additional charge as stop-gap arrangement without change in his existing grade i.e., TES Grade-III.
Similarly, the Private Respondent No. 10, namely, Shri Subrata Roy was found suitable to hold the post of Superintending Engineer, Monitoring Cell, PWD (R&B).
It is further submitted that the post of Superintending Engineer, Monitoring Cell, PWD (R&B) was lying vacant since 1st December, 2024 after superannuation of Shri Nidhir Ghosh (UR) from Government service on 30th November, 2024. Shri Nidhir Ghosh (UR) was also holding the Full duty charge of Superintending Engineer, Monitoring Cell, PWD(R&B). Therefore, Shri Subrata Roy was found suitable & ordered to hold the charge of Superintending Engineer, Monitoring Cell PWD (R&B) as stop-gap arrangement without change in his existing grade i.e., TES Grade-III.
Similarly, the Private Respondent No. 12, namely, Shri Rajib Paul was found suitable to hold the post of Superintending Engineer, Joint Secretary, PWD (R&B).
It is further submitted that the post of Superintending Engineer, Joint Secretary, PWD (R&B) was lying vacant since 1st February, 2023 after superannuation of Shri Sankar Saha (UR) from Government service on 31st December, 2023. Shri Sankar Saha (UR) was also holding the Full duty charge of Superintending Engineer, Joint Secretary, PWD (R&B). Therefore, Shri Rajib Paul was found suitable & ordered to hold the charge of Superintending Engineer, Joint Secretary, PWD (R&B) as stop-gap arrangement without change in his existing grade, i.e., TES Grade-III.
From the above discussion, it can safely be concluded due to scarcity of Superintending Engineers against UR category and to augment the developmental work under PWD for the interest of people of Tripura as well as to relieve the individual officials from holding 2/3 charges for the different posts of Superintending Engineers, the Governor, of Tripura has ordered to hold the officiating post of Superintending Engineer, Civil to those suitable candidates i.e., Private Respondents No.5-12 who have got ad hoc promotion in the posts of Executive Engineer, TES Grade-III, on 17th August, 2021 (subsequently regularized retrospectively) to meetup the stop-gap arrangement without change in their cadre strength.
Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that promotion in public employment is not a fundamental right. While employees have a right to be considered for promotion, they do not have a guaranteed right to be promoted. This means that while the government must consider eligible employees for promotion, it is not obligated to promote everyone who is eligible, as promotions are subject to service rules and criteria. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further clarified that employees don't have an inherent right to promotion simply because they meet the minimum qualifications or have been in service for a certain period. However, employees do have a right to be considered for promotion when selections are being made, unless they are disqualified by specific rules or regulations. Promotions are generally governed by specific service rules and criteria established by the government or relevant authorities. These rules often outline factors like seniority, merit, and performance, which are taken into account during the promotion process. The Constitution does not guarantee fundamental right to promotion. While it does guarantee equal opportunity in public employment, which is distinct from a right to be automatically promoted.
10. Further, it is submitted that this Hon'ble High Court of Tripura vide interim Order dated 25.03.2026, passed in IA No. 01 of 2026, arising out of WP(C) No. 184 of 2026 has stayed the operation of the impugned Notification dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure-9 to the connected Writ Petition) with the following observations/directions:-
"Prima facie, I agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that seniority aspect cannot be ignored even as per the Memorandum dt.24.09.2020 for giving Full Duty Charge of the higher post of Superintending Engineer; and that the seniority inter se between the petitioners and the private respondents in TES Grade-IV would continue unless a separate seniority list of TES Grade-III had been notified subsequently changing the inter se seniority.More importantly, in the Memorandum dt.24.09.2020, it is recited that there is a complete ban on promotions by the Supreme Court. This is factually incorrect because no order of Supreme Court banning promotions has been placed before me by the respondents No.1 to 4.When the respondents No.1 to 4 are not even informing to this Court when the regular process of promotion would be conducted, it appears that the Full Duty Charge is being given to the private respondents for an indefinite period (and not for a short period) overlooking the seniority aspect, which is also prima facie not permissible.Therefore, there shall be stay of the notification dt.13.02.2026 to the extent it grants Full Duty Charge of the posts of Superintending Engineer to the private respondents".A copy of the interim Order dated 25/03/2026 passed in IA 01 of 2026 arising out of WP(C) No. 184/2026 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/11.Further, it is felt that, out of 16 sanctioned strength of Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II, Civil against ST Category, 03 (Three) Nos. of post of Superintending Engineer, TES Grade-II, Civil is lying vacant. Therefore, 03 (Three) nos. of Executive Engineer, TES- Grade-III, Civil namely Shri Swadesh Debbarma, Shri Pijush Debbarma, Shri Hiranmoy Chakma (Petitioner No. 14) has been ordered to hold the post of Superintending Engineer on FDC vide Notification No.4(477)-PWD(LC)/2026/1512-611 dated 30/04/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura with a direction to resume their duty latest by 5th May,2026 & their joining in the said post shall be taken into account w.e.f 13/02/2026 for the purpose of drawing any Honorarium in the post Superintending Engineer on FDC in the spirit of Notification No.F.6(59)/PWD(GE)/2026/1/19696-795 dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition).A copy of the Notification No.4(477)-PWD(LC)/2026/1512-611dated30/04/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/12.Now as on 30-04-2026 the status of Man-in-Position Vs. Sanction Strength of Superintending Engineer, Civil after publication of the Notification No.4(477)-PWD(LC)/2026/1512-611 dated 30/04/2026 is as follows:-
| Sanction Strength (53) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 9 | 16 | 28 |
| Man-in-Position(36) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| 01(Regular) | 04(Regular) | 00(Regular) |
| 09(FDC) | 9+3=12(FDC) | 10 (FDC) ** |
| 10 (Total) | 16 (Total) | 10 (Total) |
| Vacant post (17) | ||
| SC | ST | UR |
| Exhausted | (Exhausted) | 18(Short) |
Further, in compliance with the Interim Order dated 25/03/2026 delivered in IA No. 01 of 2026, arising out of WP(C) No. 184 of 2026, the Administrative Department vide Order No.4(477)-PWD(LC)/2026/1496-1511 dated 30/04/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura has directed the Private Respondents No. 5 & 9 not assume their charges being a Superintending Engineer(on FDC) & furthermore also directed the Private Respondents No. 6,7,8,10,11 & 12 respectively to not to function as Superintending Engineer (on FDC) until further Order.
A copy of the Order No.4(477)-PWD (LC)/2026/1496-1511 dated 30/04/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/13.”
The other respondents also submitted their counter affidavits almost admitting the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents.
5. At the time of hearing, Learned Advocate General, Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Promod Sahu submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because no cause of action has been accrued. Furthermore, challenging the impugned notification dated 13.02.2026(Annexure-9), no representation was submitted by the petitioners to the authority and the petitioners in this case could not show any cause of action to file the writ petition. It was further submitted that in total there are/were 53 posts of Superintending Engineer and out of that 9 posts were reserved for SC, 16 posts for ST and 28 posts for UR. Out of 16 ST posts, 3 posts were lying vacant. So, by notification dated 30.04.2026 issued by Government of Tripura, three Executive Engineer (TES-III) namely Swadesh Debbarma, Pijush Debbarma, Hiranmoy Chakma have been ordered to hold the post of Superintending Engineer on FDC and now all the posts of ST has been exhausted and as such, nothing survives for adjudication. It was further submitted by Learned Advocate General that the memorandum dated 24.09.2020 issued by Finance Department contains eligibility, suitability and seniority and until and unless a person does not fulfill the criteria of eligibility and suitability then there was no question to grant promotion to the present petitioners in this case. Even considering the length of their service as per service rules they are not even eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. So, the present petitioners could not make out any case in their favour for issuing any rule for suspending the said notification dated 13.02.2026(Annexure-9). Even as per 100% rooster also, the limit of sanctioned strength cannot be exceeded. Learned Advocate General further submitted that by the said order of FDC, a stop gap arrangement was made and this is not a regular promotion and as such, their legitimate expectation, if any, can be considered in course of promotion. Furthermore, they are appointed as SC category candidate during their initial appointment. Learned Advocate General also relied upon Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014) wherein in para No.15(2), the following rules is made:
“15. Conditions of eligibility for selection
Other than direct recruitment posts, all substantive posts in various Grades of the service shall be filled by selection from officers as shown below:-
* * *
2. Grade-II posts shall be filled by officers who hold Grade-III posts and have rendered not less than 7 years regular service in the Grade and have at least a degree in an appropriate branch of engineering from a recognized University or its equivalent academic qualification.”
Referring the same, Learned Advocate General submitted that since the present petitioners have not rendered 7 years of regular service, so, legally and logically, they are also not entitled for promotion at this stage and as such, their case is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 9, 10 and 11 submitted that this present petition is not maintainable as there was no cause of action to file the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners. Furthermore, according to Learned Senior Counsel, since the present petitioners were appointed as ST candidate in the service initially, so, they cannot take the plea that they are/were otherwise eligible for promotion. Furthermore, the present petitioners have not completed 7 years of service as mandated in the TES Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014) and as such, they are also not eligible for promotion also.
Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of the Court that since the State-respondents in their counter affidavit have specifically mentioned that out of the total sanctioned strength of 53 posts for Superintending Engineer, 16 posts were kept for ST candidates and this have been filed up. So, the present petitioners have got no locus to file the writ petition and as such, they are not eligible to file the petition. It was further submitted that the reliefs which cannot be granted directly, cannot be given indirectly and since the present petitioners have failed to prove their prima facie case and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that even if the Department takes up the matter for regular promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, in that case also, the present petitioners are not qualified or eligible for the same as they have not completed 7 years of their service.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Somik Deb appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 and 12 submitted that this present writ petition is not maintainable as because the petitioners could not focus any prima facie case to grant any relief. It was further submitted that the present petitioners were appointed as ST candidates and as such, they cannot claim the benefit for want of requisite qualification/eligibility as per the service rules. It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that the respondent Nos.5 to 12 have been arrayed as proforma-respondents and until and unless they have been made as respondents in the writ petition, prima facie, there is no scope to seek any relief against them.
Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court referring para No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.5, 7, 8 and 12 wherein the position of the ST candidates have been categorically shown. Out of 53 posts of Superintending Engineers, 16 posts are reserved for ST i.e. 31% of the total strength and those posts by this time have been filled up. Thus, according to Learned Senior Counsel since there is no post vacant for the ST category, as such, the petitioners cannot claim anything in this writ petition. Nor they have got any prima facie case. Nor they have requisite qualifying period of service as per rules to claim for promotion or benefit as FDC. So, according to Learned Senior Counsel, there is no merit in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
Thereafter, Learned Senior Counsel also drawn the attention of the Court to the notification dated 22.06.2021 issued by the GA(P&T) Department wherein in para No.6(i), the following assertions have been made:
“6. Now, the State Government hereby notifies the following Promotion Policy, 2021 as follows:
(i) Rule 9 of the Tripura SC & ST Reservation Rules, 1992 and the provisos thereto shall be read in such a manner that only those SC & ST candidates who have qualified solely on the basis of merit and have never taken the benefit of reservation, will be treated to be own merit candidates and entitle to occupy the posts meant for general category and reservation shall be made cadre-wise.”
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that since the present petitioners were initially appointed as ST category candidates, they cannot be entitled to get any benefit in this case.
In this regard, Learned Senior Counsel also referred one citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 [K. H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and others dated 23.05.2006] wherein in para No.68 and 71, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:
“Rule of Reservation
68. Contention 2 relates to the correctness of the application of the rule of reservation. This point, in our opinion, will arise for consideration only if the first contention of the appellant-petitioners is accepted. If that contention is rejected, the question of considering this point will not arise. In fact, in that event, the appellant-petitioners are not even entitled to question the correctness of the list, as laid down by this Court in Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485] and only those who are eligible or in the zone of consideration can question the legality or otherwise of a select list. It is the submission of Mr T.L.V. Iyer that the select list has been prepared fully in accordance with Rules 14-17 of the Rules. The appellant-petitioners' challenge is the filling up of Slots Nos. 60, 62, 64, 66, 68 and 70 which come within the reservation slots by candidates in the merit list. This is misconceived and incorrect. Rules 15(a) and (b) of the KSSSR specially mandate that if candidate belonging to a particular community — OBC, SC/ST is not available to fill up any particular slot, then it should be passed over and filled up by a candidate available from the next reserved community and so on. If no member of a reserved community is ultimately available for filling up that slot, that slot should be filled up by an open merit candidate. That is the position here. There were no eligible reserved candidates available for filling up the aforesaid Slot No. 60, etc. As mentioned earlier, from all the reserved candidates, 37 of them available among the 88 eligible candidates had already been given place above Slot No. 60 and there was not a single reserved candidate available to fill up Slot No. 60, etc. Therefore, under Rule 15, the aforesaid slots had mandatorily to be filled up by open merit candidates. It is not possible for the Government to keep those vacancies unfilled particularly, when there was a total of 70 vacancies to be filled up and open merit candidates were also available. Non-filling up of those vacancies by open merit candidates would have resulted in violation of Rule 15. In fact, the Division Bench had gone into this aspect and examined this matter with reference to Rules and found that there was no departure from Rules 14 to 17 in the preparation of the list.
71. Mr L.N. Rao made a further contention based on the above decision that the dereservation of any post has to be done by the Government. This contention, in our view, has also no force. Assuming that this is a case of dereservation, the High Court only forwarded the list to the Government and it is the Government who approved the same. Dereservation, if any, of the posts was, therefore, done only by the Government and not by the High Court. But as stated earlier, the question of dereservation does not arise, as this is a case of application of the mandate of Rule 15. In the circumstances, the second contention raised by Mr L.N. Rao is also incorrect and untenable, apart from the fact that the appellant-petitioners who are not eligible candidates are not entitled to contest the validity of the select list on this ground. Since they are ineligible for appointment, no relief, in any case, be afforded to them in any event.”
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment.
Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 [Indra Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others] wherein in para No.323, 324, 325 and 326, Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed as under:
“323. Summary
(1) It is open to the State to adopt valid classification and make special provisions for the protection of classes of citizens whose comparative backwardness the State has a mandate to redress by affirmative action programmes. Any such programme must be strictly tailored to the constitutional requirement that no citizen shall be excluded from being considered on the basis of merits for any public employment except to the extent that a valid reservation has been made in favour of backward classes of citizens.
(2) The Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Any discrimination solely on any one or more of these prohibited grounds will result in invidious reverse discrimination which is impermissible. None of these grounds is the sole or the dominant or the indispensable criterion to identify backwardness which qualifies for reservation. But each of them is, in conjunction with factors such as poverty, illiteracy, demeaning occupation, malnutrition, physical and intellectual deformity and like disadvantages, a relevant criterion to identify socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for whom reservation is intended.
(3) Reservation contemplated under Article 16 is meant exclusively for backward classes of citizens who are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
(4) Only such classes of citizens who are socially and educationally backward are qualified to be identified as backward classes. To be accepted as backward classes for the purpose of reservation under Article 15 or Article 16, their backwardness must have been either recognised by means of a notification by the President under Article 341 or Article 342 declaring them to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, or, on an objective consideration, identified by the State to be socially and educationally so backward by reason of identified prior discrimination and its continuing ill effects as to be comparable to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. In the case of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, these conditions are, in view of the notifications, presumed to be satisfied. In the case of the other backward classes of citizens qualified for reservation, the burden is on the State to show that these classes have been subjected to such discrimination in the past that they are reduced to a state of helplessness, poverty and the consequential social and educational backwardness as in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. In other words, reservation is meant exclusively for the Harijans, the Girijans, the Adivasis, the Dalits or other like “depressed” classes or races or tribes most unfortunately referred to in the past as the “untouchables” or the “outcastes” by reason of their being born in what was wrongly regarded as low castes and associated with what was equally wrongly treated as demeaning occupations, or any other class of citizens afflicted by like degree of poverty and degradation caused by prior and continuing discrimination and exploitation, whatever be their professed faith, religion or caste. These classes of citizens, segregated in slums and ghettos and afflicted by grinding poverty, disease, ignorance, ill health and backwardness, and haunted by fear and anxiety, are the constitutionally intended beneficiaries of reservation, not because of their castes or occupations, which are merely incidental facts of history, but because of their backwardness and disabilities stemming from identified past or continuing inequities and discrimination.
(5) Members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes do not lose the benefits of reservation and other affirmative action programmes intended for backward classes merely by reason of their conversion from the Hindu or the Sikh or the Buddhist religion to any other religion, and all such persons shall continue to be accorded all such benefits until such time as they cease to be backward.
(6) Identification of backward classes for the purpose of reservation with reference to historical discrimination and its continuing ill effects is, however, subject to the overriding condition that no person whose means exceeded a predetermined economic level should be entitled to the protection of reservation, however backward he may be socially and educationally. He may, however, be considered for the benefits of other affirmative action programmes, but in doing so his comparative affluence in relation to other backward class candidates may be a relevant consideration to exclude him.
(7) Once a class of citizens is identified on correct principles as backward for the purpose of reservation, the “means test” must be strictly and uniformly applied to exclude all those persons in that class reaching above the predetermined economic level.
(8) Reservation in all cases must be confined to a minority of available posts or seats so as not to unduly sacrifice merits. The number of seats or posts reserved under Article 15 or Article 16 must at all times remain well below 50% of the total number of seats or posts.
(9) Reservation has no application to promotion. It is confined to initial appointment, whichever be the level or grade at which such appointment is made in the administrative hierarchy, and whether or not the post in question is borne on the cadre of the service.
(10) Once reservation is strictly confined to the constitutionally intended beneficiaries, as aforesaid, there will probably be no need to disappoint any deserving candidate legitimately seeking the benefit of reservation, for there will then be sufficient room well within the 50% limit for all candidates belonging to the backward classes as properly determined on correct principles. In that event, questions such as caste or religion will become merely academic and the competing maddening rush for “backward” label will vanish.
(11) A periodic administrative review of all affirmative action programmes, including reservation of seats or posts, must be conducted by a specially constituted Permanent Authority with a view to adjustment and readjustment of such programmes in proportion to the nature, degree and extent of backwardness. All such programmes must stand the test of judicial review whenever challenged. Reservation being exclusionary in character must necessarily stand the test of heightened administrative and judicial solicitude so as to be confined to the strict bounds of constitutional principles.
(12) Whenever and wherever poverty and backwardness are identified, it is the constitutional responsibility of the State to initiate economic and other measures to ameliorate the conditions of the people residing in those regions. But economic backwardness without more does not justify reservation.
(13) Poverty demands affirmative action. Its eradication is a constitutional mandate. The immediate target to which every affirmative action programme contemplated by Article 15 or Article 16 is addressed is poverty causing backwardness. But it is only such poverty which is the continuing ill-effect of identified prior discrimination, resulting in backwardness comparable to that of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, that justifies reservation.
(14) While reservation is a remedy for historical discrimination and its continuing ill effects, other affirmative action programmes are intended to redress discrimination of all kinds, whether current or historical.
(15) Any legitimate affirmative action must be supported by a valid classification based on an intelligible differentia distinguishing classes of citizens chosen for the protective measures from the generality of citizens excluded from such measures, and such differentia must bear a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, the amelioration of the backwardness of the chosen classes of citizens, which implies a reasonable proportion between the aim of the action and the means employed for its accomplishment, and its discontinuance upon the accomplishment of the object.
(16) In the final analysis, poverty which is the ultimate result of inequities and which is the immediate cause and effect of backwardness has to be eradicated not merely by reservation as aforesaid, but by free medical aid, free elementary education, scholarships for higher education and other financial support, free housing, self-employment and settlement schemes, effective implementation of land reforms, strict and impartial operation of the law-enforcing machinery, industralisation, construction of roads, bridges, culverts, canals, markets, introduction of transport, free supply of water, electricity and other ameliorative measures particularly in areas densely populated by backward classes of citizens.
324. Conclusions:
A. The validity of the impugned Government Orders providing for reservation of posts depends on convincing proof of proper identification of backward classes of citizens by recourse to relevant criteria, such as poverty, illiteracy, disease, unhygienic living conditions, low caste and consequential isolation, and in accordance with correct principles, i.e., with reference to the continuing ill effects of historical discrimination resulting in social and educational backwardness comparable to that of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, and inadequate representation of such classes of citizens in the services under the State, but subject to the overriding condition that all those persons whose means have exceeded a predetermined economic level shall be denied reservation. Amongst the aforementioned backward classes of citizens correctly identified to be qualified for reservation, preference may be legitimately extended to the comparatively poorer or more disadvantaged sections.
B. Reservation of seats or posts solely on the basis of economic backwardness, i.e., without regard to evidence of historical discrimination, as aforesaid, finds no justification in the Constitution.
C. Reservation of seats or posts for backward classes of citizens, including those for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, must remain well below 50% of the total seats or posts.
D. Reservation is confined to initial appointment to a post and has no application to promotion.
E. It is open to the State to adopt any valid affirmative action programme, otherwise than by reservation, for amelioration of the disabilities of all disadvantaged persons, including backward classes of citizens.
325. Neither the impugned orders of the Government of India [O.M. No. 36012/31/90-Estt(SCT) dated August 13, 1990 and O.M. No. 36012/31/90-Estt(SCT) dated September 25, 1991] nor the material relied upon by it nor the affidavits filed in support of the said orders disclose proper application of mind by the concerned authorities to the principles stated above for valid identification of the backward classes of citizens qualified for reservation in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders are, therefore, unsustainable. The respondent-Government is accordingly directed to reconsider the question of reservation contemplated by Article 16(4) in the light of the aforesaid principles and pass appropriate orders.
326. We have delivered our separate judgments. In the light of the reasons stated by us, the impugned orders (O.M. No. 36012/31/90-Estt(SCT) dated August 13, 1990 and O.M. No. 36012/31/90-Estt(SCT) dated September 25, 1991) issued by the Government of India are declared unenforceable for want of valid identification of backward classes of citizens qualified for reservation under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, we direct the Union of India to re-examine the question of identification of the backward classes of citizens in accordance with the principles and directives contained in our respective judgments and pass appropriate orders providing for reservation under Article 16(4).”
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that this present case is also squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
Finally, Learned Senior Counsel referred another citation of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 10 SCC 402 [State of Punjab and others vs. Arun Kumar Aggarwal and others] wherein in para Nos.10 and 15, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:
“10. The other ground recited in the order dated 22-6-2005 supporting withdrawal of CDC which in our view would be relevant to resolve the present controversy is in the following terms:
“Whereas, the Government has notified the Punjab Irrigation Department (Group „A‟) Service Rules, 2004 on 30-4-2004 and it has been decided to fill up the vacant posts of SDOs on regular basis from amongst Junior Engineers by holding DPC under the provisions of the new Rules, 2004 ibid.
Now, therefore, in view of the position explained above when the new Departmental Service Rules, 2004 have been notified and the Government has issued fresh guidelines on 19-4-2005 for granting current duty charge and it has also been decided to fill up the vacant posts of SDOs on regular basis by holding DPC, the continuity of holding current duty charge of the post of SDO by the abovementioned 20 Junior Engineers is not in public interest, the Government of Punjab is pleased to withdraw the current duty charge of the post of SDOs from these abovementioned 20 Junior Engineers with immediate effect and these 20 Junior Engineers shall continue to work as Junior Engineers against their original posts.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. We, accordingly, hold no such right much less indefeasible right has been accrued to the diploma-holder Junior Engineers (outstanding category) by virtue of giving CDC to the post of SDO for regularisation in the post. It was purely a stopgap arrangement, neither based on seniority nor efficiency and no cause of action arises by withdrawing the same by the order dated 22-6-2005.”
Referring the same, Learned Senior Counsel drawn the attention of the Court although in the aforesaid judgment the term “CDC” is used but the nomenclature of CDC and FDC is same and similar and by the notification dated 13.02.2026 stop gap arrangement is made and the same is not a promotion and the petitioners in this case could not make out any case for consideration and even they are not eligible for claiming any relief in this petition and as such, the same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard parties at length and perused the writ petition and the connected documents as well as the counter affidavits filed by the petitioners. As already stated, at the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner very categorically stated that they had no grievance against any of the proforma respondents. Nor they are claiming any relief in this petition. Their only contention is that the notification dated 13.02.2026(Annexure-9) is contrary to the memorandum dated 24.09.2020 issued by the Finance Department. Admittedly, the present petitioners were appointed under ST category at the time of their initial appointment and at present they are not eligible for promotion to the higher post as per TES Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014). Furthermore, challenging the said notification i.e. Annexure 9, the present petitioner did not submit any representation to the authority. In this regard, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others reported in (2022) 19 SCC 626 wherein in para Nos.14 and 15, observed as under:
“14. This Court, thus declined to interfere in the matter holding that the petitioner must approach the investigating agencies directly with the incriminating material and then it is for the investigating agencies to decide on the further course of action. Although an apprehension was raised by this Court that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to uncover alleged corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, yet statutory remedies available to the petitioner must be first exhausted and only thereafter can he approach the High Court.
15. In the present case no such effort has been made by the respondent (i.e. the petitioner in the PIL) to approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever. The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ of mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a public interest litigation. With regard to the present public interest litigations before us, it is an admitted fact that the respondent has not taken any steps in approaching the statutory authorities or made any effort in the registration of an FIR.”
From the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that the fundamental requirement for issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ of mandamus. Here in this case, the present petitioners before filing of the writ petition did not seek any redress to the appropriate authority raising their grievances and as such, in the considered opinion of this Court the present petitioners could not make out any case to entertain the same.
Similarly, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in another judgment reported in (1975) 4 SCC 714 [Amrit Lal Berry Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and others dated 10.12.1974] in para No.25, observed as under:
“25. In the petition of K.N. Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner's right. Hence, the Rule recognised by this Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of W.B. [(1972) 2 SCC 420, 426 (Para
11) : AIR 1972 SC 2060, 2065] that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or writ of mandamus, would also operate against the petitioners.”
Further, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in WP(C)/715/2025 [Rajat vs. Union of India dated 04.08.2025] in para No.2, 3 and 4, observed as under:
“2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not approached the Ministry of Transport with any representation prior to presenting this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking framing of uniform guidelines mandating compulsory installation of reverse parking sensors and rear-view cameras on all motor vehicles, the writ petition is not entertained in view of the decision of this Court reported in Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise.
3. The writ petition stands dismissed.
4. This order of dismissal shall, however, not preclude the petitioner to approach the Ministry with an appropriate representation with full particulars.”
Thus, it appears to this Court that there was no cause of action on the part of the petitioner to file this present writ petition without seeking any relief to the appropriate authority and as already stated, at the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that they did not approach to the authority against issuing of notification dated 13.02.2026(Annexure-9).
Further, from the counter affidavit and the supported documents submitted by the contesting respondents, it appears that the order issuing FDC was nothing but a stop gap arrangement. The petitioner could not make out any case by showing any materials on record that the same was contrary to the memorandum dated 24.09.2020 issued by the Finance Department.
Furthermore, in pursuance of the TES Rules, 1987 (7th Amendment, 2014) the petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and as such, they are also not eligible for claiming promotion if at all any promotional exercise is taken by the Department for filling up the said post. Moreso, from the counter affidavit as referred earlier, it appears that out of the sanction strength of 53 for the Superintending Engineers post, 16 posts reserved for ST have already been filled up. So, the petitioners cannot claim any relief in this petition. As already stated, by a notification dated 30.04.2026 three officers under ST category were given the charge of FDC by the Government, so, no post remains vacant at this stage after this said exercise. Furthermore, since the petitioners were initially appointed under ST category and as such, they cannot claim for the post reserved for UR candidate also.
9. Thus, after hearing the parties, it appears to this Court that the notification issued by the respondent-Department on 13.02.2026 is nothing but a stop gap arrangement and by the said notification, the rights of the petitioners had not been curtailed by the Department and furthermore, the present petitioners could not make any case to issue any rule in their favour and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order passed as to costs. The interim stay granted by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 stands vacated accordingly.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.