Reported by Mrinal Kanti Banik
Agartala: The Tripura High Court has directed the state government to reconsider the promotion of a woman Jailor to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail, ruling that gender cannot be a valid ground to deny career advancement when the applicable recruitment rules make no distinction between male and female officers.
Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ petition and set aside a May 1, 2025 communication issued by the Inspector General of Prisons rejecting the officer’s claim for promotion. The court held that the decision was legally unsustainable and directed the competent authority to reassess her case within three months, provided she satisfies all prescribed eligibility criteria.
The petitioner was appointed as a Female Sub-Jailor in the Home (Jail) Department through the Tripura Public Service Commission in September 1997. Although she had become eligible for promotion to the post of Jailor much earlier, she was promoted only in October 2018 following intervention by the High Court.
According to the petition, she completed the mandatory five years of service as Jailor in October 2023, making her eligible for consideration for promotion to Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail under the existing recruitment rules. However, despite an earlier direction from the High Court to consider her case, the prison authorities informed her in May 2025 that she was not eligible for promotion.
The petitioner contended that the recruitment rules do not prescribe any gender-based distinction for promotion and alleged that her advancement had been stalled solely because she is a woman. She also pointed out that another eligible officer had already been promoted during the same period.
During the hearing, her counsel relied on the Supreme Court‘s landmark ruling in the Babita Puniya case, arguing that equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional guarantee and that gender cannot be used to deny promotional benefits.
The state argued that promotion is not an automatic entitlement and submitted that the petitioner could file a fresh representation, which would be examined in accordance with the rules.
After reviewing the records, the High Court found no adverse remarks against the petitioner’s service record and observed that the recruitment rules contain no provision allowing gender-based discrimination in matters of promotion. Holding that the rejection order was contrary to law, the court quashed the communication and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim within three months in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules.