The lack of essential qualifications and experience required for promotion and the absence of promotional avenues for the petitioners influenced the court's decision.

By means of these writ petitions, being W.P(C) No.488 of 2015 (Smt. Soma Pal vs. The State of Tripura), W.P(C) No.489 of 2015 (Smt. Sarmistha Majumder vs. The State of Tripura) and being W.P(C) No.490 of 2015 (Smt. Chandrani Chakraborty vs. The State of Tripura), the petitioners who were appointed to the post of the Senior Instructor, Group-C (Non-Gazetted) in the Tripura Institute of Technology, the TIT in short, under the Higher Education Department, formerly known as the Polytechnic Institute have urged for direction to consider them for promotion to the post of Foreman Instructor preceded by a declaration that the petitioners are eligible for such consideration. Alternatively, the petitioners have urged for direction on the respondents to ‘create a promotional avenue for the further post’. Sans a little variation somewhere in the fact, the core question involved, these writ petitions are identical and hence, clubbed together for disposal by a common judgment.

2. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 488 of 2015, namely Smt. Soma Pal and the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.490 for 2015, namely Smt. Chandrani Chakraborty were appointed regularly in the post of Senior Instructor (Chemistry), Group-C w.e.f. 13.12.2007 by the memorandum No.F.7(198)DHE/NG/2007/(L) dated 24.12.2007. Those petitioners were entertained against the posts created in the fixed pay, keeping the regular scale of pay in abeyance as per the policy of the Government but their appointments are substantive in nature for all purposes. It is to be noted that both the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.488 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No.490 of 2015 were engaged initially in the said post of Senior Instructor (Chemistry) on contract basis under the terms as laid in the respective order since 18.10.2004, AnnexureP/3 to the writ petitions of those petitioners. By the communication under No.F.7(198)DHE/NG/96(L) dated 27.09.2007, AnnexureP/6 to the writ petitions of those petitioners, the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura had apprised the Principal-in-Charge, TIT as follows:

“Subject – Regularisation of service of the Contractual Workers of erstwhile PTI now TIT reg.

Sir,

It has been decided by the Government that the services of the eligible Contractual Workers working at P.T.I. (now TIT) on contract basis in different branches may be regularised as per existing rules. Also decided the age relaxation may also be considered in respect of the workers those who were age barred to appear for the interview.

It is therefore, requested to kindly ask the eligible Contractual Workers as per list attached to appear before the Interview Board scheduled to be held on 15th October, 2007 at 11 A.M. at Government Music College, Agartala with all original testimonials.”

The memorandum No.F.7(198)DHE/NG/2007/L dated 24.12.2007 is the outcome of the said process. Even though the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.489 of 2015 was initially engaged as the Instructor (MOPM) on contract basis by the order dated 04.11.2004, AnnexureP/4 to her writ petition, but she was also regularised by the said memorandum dated 24.12.2007 as the Senior Instructor, Group-C w.e.f. 13.12.2007 like the other petitioners against the post created on fixed pay basis. From the memorandum under No.F.7(207)DHE/NG/2012 dated 12.03.2013, all the writ petitioners were allowed the regular scale of pay, PB-2 Rs.5310-24000/with the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/along with other allowances w.e.f. 13.12.2012 as those petitioners completed five years of service on 12.12.2012 from their substantive appointment on 13.12.2007 inasmuch as they were entertained against the post carrying fixed pay by keeping the regular pay scale in abeyance. There is no dispute that all the petitioners were appointed substantively in the post of Senior Instructor, Group-C (Non- Gazetted).

3. From the recruitment r