The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to align appointment rules with the upgraded school's standard, the requirement for registration under Act No.34 of 1992, and the possibility of a review DPC for promotion.

Both the writ petitions, mentioned above, were heard together on the prayer of learned counsel both side since the facts narrated and the points involved as well as the material parties in both the writ petitions were same and hence, this common judgment is passed which shall govern both the writ petitions.

2. WP(C) 444 of 2011 is taken up as the lead case and the documents annexed in that writ petition are referred in the judgment hereunder.

3. By filing WP(C) 444 of 2011, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue Rule upon the Official Respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not transmit all records relating to this case of the petitioner; and

(ii) As to why a Writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing the recommendations issued by Respondent No9 ( -O & P) recommending the names of respondent No10 & 11 to be eligible candidate to appoint as principal of IVH H.S.(+2) stage and concurrence issued by Respondent No8 ( -T) for appointment of Respondent No10 & 11 to the post of IVH H.S.(+2) stage declaring the same as violative of mandatory provisions of DPC’s to be followed, and

(iii) As to why Writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the notifications No.F.20(39)DSWE/ESTT/96/2796(9) dated 2192011 and No.F.20(43)DSWE/ESTT/96/2795(9) dated, 2192011 issued by respondent No2 ( U & V) to the writ petition declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Recruitment Rules; and

(iv) As to why writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the official respondents asking them as to why the Recruitment Rules of Headmaster/ Headmistress of H.S. Schools/District Inspector of Schools issued by the Under Secretary, Education department, Government of Tripura and Respondent No4 ( -F) shall not be applicable to appoint Principal of IVH, H.S.(+2) stage School in absence of any Recruitment Rules issued for appointment of Principal of IVH H.S.(+2) stage School; and

(v) As to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent No2 and 7 to appoint/promote the petitioner to the post of Principal of IVH, H.S.(+2) stage, (Boys), Narsingarh, instead of Respondent No10 as the petitioner is the senior most Blind Educator having 19 years experience and fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed/promoted in the said post;

(vi) As to why such other order or orders, relief/relieves should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioner and upon causes shown to make the Rule absolute.

4. Again by filing WP(C) 88 of 2015, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:

I. Issue Notice upon the Respondents.

II. Call for the relevant records.

III. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Promotion granted to the Private Respondents in the post of Principal, I.V.H (Boy’s), Narsinghar and I.V.H. (Girl’s), Narsinghar shall not be quashed and as to why the Private Respnodents shall not be reverted to the post of Blind Educator under the Respondent Department.

AND

Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a direction mandating the Respondents to send proposal for Review D.P.C. to the Gr. A Departmental Promotional committee by preparing Revised Zone of consideration of Blind Educators on the basis of Revised Seniority List dated 21st July, 2014 from the year 2007/2008 and to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal, Institute for the Visually Handicapped (Boy’s), Narsinghar w.e.f April, 2007 with all consequential monitory relief, SHALL NOT BE ISSUED.

AND

Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the remaining arrear amount & T.A/D.A for the training period of the petitioner shall not be granted in favour of the Petitioners as per the judgment and order dated 19.03.2014 passed in W.P(C) No.203 of 2009.

IV. And after hearing the parties, be p