Smt. Puja Debnath vs The State of Tripura

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Nath appearing for the petitioner and also heard Learned Advocate General, Mr. S. M. Chakraborty assisted by Learned Counsel, Ms. P. Chakraborty along with Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Civil Defence Volunteer and she conducted civil defence basic course w.e.f. 24.06.2019 to 28.06.2019 and relied upon Annexure-1, i.e. the certificate issued by Directorate of Civil Defence. The petitioner further relied upon another certificate dated 04.11.2022 issued by District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, by which the DM & Collector accredited the service of the petitioner as Civil Defence Volunteer. Learned Counsel thereafter drawn the attention of the Court that by an recruitment notice dated 20.11.2022 the AIG, Establishment Tripura issued one recruitment notice for filling up of the post of Constable, Tripura Police, Men and Women and out of total 1,000 posts 328 posts were kept reserved for Women in addition to 26 Ex-servicemen. It was further submitted that in the said advertisement there were 89 posts kept reserved for SC category including 03 Ex-servicemen and 30 Women. 328 posts reserved for ST category including 9 Ex-servicemen and 109 Women and 583 posts for UR category including 14 Ex-servicemen and 193 Women.

Learned Senior Counsel, thereafter submitted that in the said recruitment notice it was also clarified that from the aforesaid posts recruitment from candidates who are Special Police Officers (SPOs), Home Guards, Civil Defence Personnel, Ex-servicemen and 10,323 discharged ad hoc Teachers and the candidates participated in the earlier cancelled recruitment process will be considered in-accordance-with the orders and notifications issued by the Government of Tripura from time of time.

Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner as a Civil Defence Volunteer applied for the said post and accordingly, she was called for interview and relied upon Annexure-7. It was further submitted that the Government of Tripura by a notification dated 26.10.2013 (Annexure-10) also kept reservation for Civil Defence Volunteers-2% and Ex-servicemen-3% and by the recruitment notice dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure-3) the said notification was not superseded rather the same was valid on the day of application for the said post and accordingly, the petitioner participated in the process, but unfortunately, her candidature was not considered on the ground that the petitioner did not have 4 (four) years experience as Civil Defence Personnel and submitted that in Column No.9 of Annexure-3 age relaxation as per Government Notification was mentioned which was not applicable for the petitioner as because on the day of application, she was only 21 years of age, so, her case does not comes under the criteria of age relaxation, but the respondent-authority without any basis did not consider her case for the post of Women Constable under 2% category reserved for Civil Defence Volunteers.

Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon one judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in WP(C) 197 of 2025 dated 27.08.2025 wherein Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and that was challenged by the State of Tripura before the Division Bench of this High Court and the Division Bench of this High Court by judgment dated 10.03.2026 in W.A. No.107 of 2025 affirmed the judgment delivered by the Learned Single Judge dated 27.08.2025.

It was further submitted that the judgment of the aforesaid case has been complied with by the Government and since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment, so, the petitioner is entitled to get relief in this petition and urged before this Court for allowing this writ petition.

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the State-respondents in the counter-affidavit also admitted that the petitioner is a Civil Defence Volunteer but they stated that she only completed 2 years and 6 days basic training as Civil Defence Volunteer which was less than 4 (four) years but the criteria of 4 (four) years would not apply in the instant matter and urged for considering the submission at the time of disposal of this writ petition.

The State-respondents have contested the case by filing counter-affidavit and in para Nos.9, 10, 11, 13 & 14 the State-respondents have asserted as under:

And by filing the counter-affidavit the State-respondents have urged for disposal of the writ petition.

Referring the same, Learned Advocate General submitted that even if it is found that the petitioner was 21 years of age on the day of application but in that case she ought to have 4 (four) years experience as Civil Defence Personnel which the petitioner did not have and as such she was not eligible for selection to the post of Constable of Women.

It was further submitted that even if the documents relied upon by the petitioner is accepted i.e. Annexure-1 as well as Annexure-2 and the notification of the Home Department dated 20.11.2022 (Annexure-3) is taken into consideration, in that case also it will transpire that she could not recue 4 (four) years experience for selection to the post of Constable Women under 2% reservation as Civil Defence Volunteer.

Learned Advocate General thereafter, drawn the attention of the Court referring Annexure-R-5 i.e. the notification dated 19.08.1997 where it has been categorically mentioned that for selection to the post of Fireman, Constable, Jail Warder the Civil Defence Volunteer should have a 4 (four) years experience. Referring the same, Learned Advocate General further submitted that the present petitioner has not challenged the said notification or the petitioner could not produce any other document to substantiate that the same document has been cancelled or modified or superseded by any other subsequent notification by the Government. So, since the petitioner as a Civil Defence Volunteer did not have 4 (four) years experience, so, the respondents-authority rightly rejected her candidature to appoint her to the post Constable Women and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this petition.

It was further submitted by Learned Advocate General that the interpretation of Clause-9 of the Recruitment Notice be made in such a manner, so that the same cannot be interpreted in different manner ignoring the notification of the Government of Tripura on 19.08.1997 (Annexure-R-5). So, according to Learned Advocate General the petitioner in this case would not make out any case for issuing rule and urged for dismissal of the writ petition.

It was further submitted by Learned Advocate General that the judgment referred by the petitioner of a Coordinate Single Bench and also the Division Bench of this High Court are totally different from the facts of the present case as because in those judgment the issue was regarding interpretation of the earlier notification of the Government. As such those judgments cannot be applied and relied upon in this case and finally, Learned Advocate General urged for dismissal of the writ petition.

However, to counter the submission made by Learned Advocate General, Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drawn the notification of the Government dated 20.10.2013 (Annexure-8) wherein it has been mentioned that the said notification of 2013 was issued in partial modification of the earlier notification of the Government of Tripura dated 19.08.1997 to that Learned Advocate General further submitted that by the subsequent notification dated 26.10.2013 (Annexure-8) the earlier notification i.e. Annexure-R-5 was not totally cancelled or superseded by the Government cancelling the requirement of 4 (four) years experience in respect of Civil Defence Volunteer for appointment to the post of Fireman, Constable and Jail Warder etc.

Heard both the sides at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents along with the documents submitted by the State-respondents. There is no denial of the fact that the Recruitment notice, i.e. Annexure-3 was issued by the Government for recruitment of 1000 Constable of Tripura Police both men and women wherein it was specifically mentioned that those who are SPOs, Home Guards, Civil Defence Personnel and 10323 discharged adhoc teachers participated in the cancelled recruitment process will be considered for selection in-accordance-with the orders and notification issued by the Government of Tripura time to time.

It is also the admitted position that in Clause-9 there was a clause for age relaxation as per Government notification wherein respect of Home Guards and Civil Defence Personnel it was mentioned that they shall not be more than 26 years age on the date they were enrolled as Home Guards or Civil Defence Personnel and not more than 37 years of age on 1^st January, 2022 with further condition that they should have minimum 4 (four) years experience as Home Guards/Civil Defence Personnel.

It was the case of the petitioner that this clause of 4 (four) years experience would not apply in respect of the present petitioner as because her case does not come under the category of age relaxation as she was 21 years of age on the date of application as prescribed by the respondents-authority.

In support of her contention the petitioner also relied upon the certificates issued by Directorate of Civil Defence (Annexure-1) and Annexure-2 the Certificate of DM & Collector, West Tripura District and relying upon those documents the petitioner contented that she was eligible for recruitment to the post of Constable Woman in pursuance of the said Eecruitment Notice (Annexure-3). But the State-respondents denied the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the said 4 (four) years experience of eligibility also would apply in the case of the petitioner as because she did not have 4 (four) years experience on the date of application furthermore, if the period of her engagement as Civil Defence Volunteer is counted w.e.f. 24.06.2019 then also she could not qualify 4 (four) years experience as Civil Defence Volunteer and furthermore, by the notification dated 19.08.1997 (Annexure-R-5) the requirement of 4 (four) years experience as Civil Defence Personnel was not taken away/deleted by the employment notification, i.e. Annexure-3. Now for the sake of convenience, let us reproduce herein below the relevant notification dated 19.08.1997 (Annexure-R-5) which is as follows:

On perusal of the aforesaid notifications it appears that in Anneuxre-R-5 it was specifically mentioned by the Government of Tripura that a person applying for the post of Fireman or Constable or Jail Warder should have 4 (four) years experience as Home Guards and Civil Defence Volunteers for their eligibility and they should also not be more than 26 years of age on the date of enrolment as Home Guards and Civil Defence Volunteer and not more than 37 years of age on the 1^st January for the year in which recruitment for the post of Fireman, Constable or Jail Warder is being considered. Although, the said notification was modified later on by Annexure-8 supra but by Annexure-8 the eligibility criteria as mentioned in Annexure-R-5 was not deleted or repelled by the Authority and as such as submitted by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Clause-9 of the Recruitment Notice (Annexure-3) would not apply in respect of the present petitioner cannot be accepted and the same cannot be interpreted in another manner that although the petitioner was 21 years of age on the date of application for the post of Constable of Police Woman, she will be exempted from having 4 (four) years experience as decided by the Government and furthermore, the petitioner by adducing documentary evidence on record failed to show that she was having 4 (four) years experience on the date of application for the post Woman Constable under Civil Defence Volunteer quota and more so, the facts of the judgments as relied upon by the petitioner are totally different from the subject matter of this present writ petition and as such the same cannot be applied in this present writ petition filed by the petitioner. Thus, it appears to this Court that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuing mandamas rule in her favour and as such she is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves no consideration and accordingly, the same stands rejected being devoid of merit.

With this observation this writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.