Tripura High Court Restrains TTAADC From Paying Salaries Over Illegal Backdoor Appointments

Introduction

The Tripura High Court has delivered a significant interim ruling, restraining the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) from paying salaries to staff who were regularized through what it termed "illegal backdoor appointments." A division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit issued the order while hearing two public interest litigations challenging the recruitment process.

Case Background

The court was hearing PILs filed by residents of Gomati Tripura, including Gobinda Manik Jamatia and Birdhan Jamatia, who alleged that TTAADC had made "certain illegal and back door appointments" in Group-C and Group-D posts. The petitioners claimed these appointments were made without proper advertisement, without inviting applications from eligible candidates, and without following any selection process. The appointments were based on " pick and choose basis ," the petitioners argued.

TTAADC, established under Schedule VI to the Constitution for administration of tribal areas, is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12. In its counter affidavit, TTAADC admitted that while it had framed rules like the TTAADC Civil Service (Appointment, Promotion, Conduct and Disciplinary) Rules, 2007, these rules had not received the assent of the Governor—a mandatory requirement under Section 3(3) of the Sixth Schedule. Without such assent, the rules have no legal effect.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners relied on newspaper reports and information obtained under RTI to demonstrate that no proper recruitment process had been followed. They pointed to appointment orders as evidence of irregular hiring.

TTAADC defended its actions by stating that the "Executive of the TTAADC," which is the highest competent authority analogous to a state cabinet, had decided to regularize certain trained part-time workers, casual workers, and paid vouchers who had been serving for long periods. However, the council did not dispute that these workers were initially appointed without adequate publicity, without following a prescribed selection process, and without observing the rule of reservation.

Legal Analysis and Court's Observations

The court found several fundamental flaws in TTAADC's approach. First, without valid rules governing appointments, the regularization lacked any legal foundation. Second, TTAADC failed to disclose what posts had been created or what pay scales were applicable. The bench observed that regularizing services in posts that "are possibly not even sanctioned" and making payments from public funds violated constitutional principles.

"All such appointment have to be construed as illegal backdoor appointments only," the court stated in a key passage. "We fail to understand, how in the absence of existence of sanctioned posts with approved scale of pay and allowances, the TTAADC could regularize services of above referred persons."

The court emphasized that TTAADC, as an instrumentality of the State , is bound by Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), which require transparency in recruitment and adherence to reservation rules. "TTAADC cannot give a go-bye to the above Principles of law," the bench added.

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • "It is not disputed that Part-time Workers/Casual Workers/ paid vouchers had been appointed initially without giving adequate publicity by way of public advertisement, without following a prescribed process of selection, and without following of rule of reservation ."

  • "All such appointment have to be construed as illegal backdoor appointments only."

  • "We fail to understand, how in the absence of existence of sanctioned posts with approved scale of pay and allowances, the TTAADC could regularize services of above referred persons."

  • "TTAADC cannot give a go-bye to the above Principles of law and regularize services in posts which are possibly not even sanctioned, and make payment out of the public funds for persons holding the said posts after regularization of their services."

Court's Decision and Implications

The court restrained respondents No.1 and 2 (TTAADC and its CEO) from paying salaries to the private respondents—the regularized employees—in both writ petitions pending further orders. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 1, 2026, and the court directed TTAADC to ensure service of notices on all private respondents.

This interim order sends a strong message to autonomous bodies under the Sixth Schedule: recruitment and regularization must follow constitutional mandates, even in the absence of state-level rules. The decision underscores that public funds cannot be used to sustain appointments made without transparency, proper sanction, or adherence to reservation policies.