The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service ranks.

JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi; CJ.:--

These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 512 of 2017, WP(C) No. 513 of 2017 & WP(C) No. 514 of 2017. WA No. 189 of 2021, WA No. 191 of 2021 and WA No. 192 of 2021 are filed by the original private respondents. WA No. 246 of 2021, WA No. 247 of 2021 and WA No. 248 of 2021 are filed by the State government.

[2] Facts being common, may be recorded from WA No. 189 of 2021. Respondent No. 1 original petitioner was appointed as a Havilder (GD) in Tripura State Rifles on 15.01.2000. The petitioners of other two petitions were appointed to the same post on 21.01.2000 and 22.01.2000 respectively. As against this the appellants, the original private respondents of all three writ petitions were appointed to the same post on 06.06.2000, 05.06.2000, 09.06.2000 and 27.06.2000. According to the petitioners, they were recruited and appointed not only prior to the private respondents but that through a separate recruitment process. According to the petitioners thus they had a claim of seniority over the private respondents in the cadre. It appears that the appellants herein were treated as senior to the petitioners by the department on the ground that upon completion of a mandatory training for confirmation in the service, they had fared better than the petitioners. According to the department, this seniority position was reflected in series of seniority lists published from time to time. The private respondents were promoted to the next higher post of Naib Subedar (GD) in the years 2010 and 2011 when the petitioners were not granted such promotion.

[3] In the year 2017, the petitioners filed these three petitions in which initially they had challenged the seniority list of Havilder (GD) dated 17.01.2009 and challenged promotion orders dated 20.09.2010, 01.10.2010 and 07.07.2011 under which the private respondents were promoted to the post of Naib Subedar (GD). The State government appeared and filed reply and pointed out that the final seniority lists for the post Havilder (GD) were published and circulated in the year 2003, 2005 and 2007. The therefore petitioners amended the petitions and included a challenge to these seniority lists also. In the amended petition they took the stand that these seniority lists were not to their knowledge and were finalized without publication of tentative seniority lists and therefore invalid.

[4] The official respondents had appeared and filed replies in which the stand taken was that the seniority lists were circulated from time to time. The private respondents had completed their training so also the petitioners. The private respondents had scored higher aggregate marks in the test conducted at the completion of the training than the petitioners and therefore their seniority was fixed ahead of the petitioners in terms of Rule 9 of the Tripura State Rifles (Discipline, Control, Service Conditions etc.), Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said rules).

[5] The private respondents had also appeared and resisted the petitions raising the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence.

[6] The learned Single Judge proceeded to accept the stand of the petitioners that seniority lists of 2003, 2005 and 2007 were not circulated. This was in view of inability of the department to produce evidence of the circulation thereof. The learned Single Judge also believed that the petitioners and the private respondents were recruited through two separate recruitment processes. With respect to delay and laches, on the ground