SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 503

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Dr. Nazaru Debbarma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura and 4 Others – Respondent
WA 127 / 2024



HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA W.A. No. 127/2024 Dr. Nazaru Debbarma, S/o Sanjib Kr. Debbarma, R/o: Vill.-Bishrambari, P.O.- NIT College, P.S.- Jirania, District-West Tripura, Age- 34 years.

……… Appellant(s).

V E R S U S

1. The State of Tripura, (to be represented by the Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura), New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.-New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 010.

2. The Under Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.-

New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 010.

3. The Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Tripura, Bidurkarta Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001.

4. The I/C, Director of Medical Education, Government of Tripura, Bidurkarta Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001.

5. Dr. Chandan Kumar Tripura, M.S (ST) [Sl. No.-15 of Notification, dated, 27.06.2024, issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura]

(Notice upon the Respondent No.-5 be served through the O/o the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Tripura, Bidurkarta Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799 001)

6. The Secretary, General Administration (Personnel and Training), Government of Tripura.

……… Respondent(s).

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General, Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Ms. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. Elembrok Debbarma, Advocate HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Date of hearing & ju dgment : 15.12.2025 Whether fit for reporting : YES JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dt. 03.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.452 of 2024.

2. The appellant had filed this Writ Petition challenging the absorption of the 5th respondent to the post of Basic Teacher in the discipline of General Surgery in terms of an advertisement dt. 11.02.2022 filed as Annexure-1 in the Writ Petition.

3. 3 (three) posts of Basic Teacher in the discipline of General Surgery were vacant at that point of time which had to be filled up by absorption. Out of these 3 (three) posts, one post was reserved for Unreserved category, one for Scheduled Tribe and one for Scheduled Caste. The advertisement stipulated that absorption will be made on the basis of Seniority in marks.

4. For the Scheduled Tribe category only the appellant and the 5th respondent under consideration. The 5th respondent secured 53.97 API score while the appellant who was junior to the 5th respondent got 53.6 API score.

5. The appellant contended in the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition that the 5th respondent had already been promoted as Grade-II Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis and so his selection and absorption as Basic Teacher in the discipline of General Surgery is illegal because the Tripura Government Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Services Conditions Rules, 2015 dt. 04.08.2015 required that only persons in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts were eligible for absorption as a Basic Teacher and the 5th respondent was therefore not eligible.

6. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment rejected his plea and held that the 5th respondent had been given only an ad-hoc promotion to Grade-II post on 31.12.2021; an ad-hoc appointment or promotion to a post was merely a stop-gap arrangement to meet certain administrative exigencies; and an ad-hoc appointee cannot be said to be holder of the post on permanent or regular basis. He also held that as per the policy framed by the State Government on 22.06.2021 for promotions, such promotions would only be on ad-hoc basis and since the 5th respondent‟s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top