Tripura HC Quashes IGP's Order Denying Female Jailor Promotion, Holds Gender Cannot Bar Deputy Superintendent Post

The Tripura High Court set aside a communication that denied a Female Jailor promotion to Deputy Superintendent, ruling that no recruitment rule permits gender-based exclusion from the post.

The High Court of Tripura has allowed a writ petition filed by Smti. Bela Datta, a Female Jailor at Sonamura Sub-Jail, and quashed a letter dated 01.05.2025 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura, which declared her ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent under the Home (Jail) Department. Justice Biswajit Palit, sitting singly, held that the recruitment rules framed by the Government contain no gender-based bar on promotion from Jailor to Deputy Superintendent, and that the impugned communication was “contrary to the principles of natural justice.” The respondent authority has been directed to consider Datta's case for promotion within three months, subject to her satisfying all prescribed eligibility criteria.

A Service History Marked by Court Interventions

Datta joined the Home (Jail) Department on 24.09.1997 as a Female Sub-Jailor, recruited through the Tripura Public Service Commission. Her service record was uncontested — the State's counter affidavit contained nothing adverse about her performance either as Sub-Jailor or as Jailor. She was also a gold medalist in the Six Month Correctional Administrative Training Course from the Sampurnanand Jail Training Institute, Lucknow, in 2001, and underwent further training including a course on Human Rights in Prison Management organised by the Government of India.

Under the applicable recruitment rules, a Sub-Jailor becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Jailor after ten years of continuous service. Datta completed ten years in 2007 but was not promoted. She approached this Court in WP(C) No.201 of 2015, and pursuant to the judgment and order dated 11.03.2016, the State promoted her to the post of Female Jailor by order dated 04.10.2018. From 2018 to 2020 she was posted at Kendriya Sansodhanagar, Bishalgarh, and was thereafter transferred to Sonamura Jail, where she continued to serve as Jailor.

The recruitment rules also provide that the post of Deputy Superintendent shall be filled by promotion from a Jailor or Probation Officer with five years of experience in the grade. Having been appointed Jailor on 04.10.2018, Datta completed five years in that grade on 04.10.2023. The Tripura Sansodhanagar Rules, 2021 came into effect from 08.12.2021, and following their implementation the State promoted one Sri Prasenjit Das to the post of Deputy Superintendent on 04.05.2022.

Despite completing the qualifying service period, Datta was not considered for promotion. She submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Prisons on 06.11.2023, which went unaddressed. She then filed WP(C) No.826 of 2024 before this Court, and a co-ordinate Bench by judgment and order dated 07.01.2025 directed the respondents to consider her case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. That order was not complied with. Datta filed a contempt petition, and it was only after notice was issued in contempt proceedings that the Inspector General of Prisons sent a communication dated 01.05.2025 informing her that she was not found eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent.

The Legal Issue: Whether Gender Can Restrict Promotion Under the Existing Rules

Datta's counsel, Ms. Rajasree Purkayastha, argued that the recruitment rules applicable to the post of Deputy Superintendent make no distinction between Male Jailors and Female Jailors for the purpose of promotion. The impugned communication of 01.05.2025, she submitted, effectively denied promotion on grounds of gender — a basis entirely absent from the rules. Counsel also placed before the Court paragraphs 68 to 70 of the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors., reported in (2020) 7 SCC 469, which addressed the use of sex stereotypes and socially ascribed gender roles as grounds for denying equal opportunity to women in service.

The Advocate General, Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, appearing for the State along with Senior Government Advocate Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, offered a limited defence. He submitted that while the recruitment rule for the post of Deputy Superintendent is silent on gender, the Government had framed a separate recruitment rule specifically for the post of Female Jailor. He also contended that an employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right unless there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. His primary suggestion was that the Court should direct Datta to submit a fresh representation rather than issue a writ of mandamus.

The Advocate General, however, could not provide any specific clarification as to why the communication dated 01.05.2025 was sustainable, nor could he identify any provision in the recruitment rules that justified denying promotion on the basis that the petitioner was a Female Jailor.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Palit accepted the State's concession that no adverse entry existed against Datta for the entirety of her service as Sub-Jailor and as Jailor. The Court acknowledged the settled principle that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but paired that observation with its necessary counterpart: that promotion must be considered by the authority when an employee's performance in the preceding post is satisfactory.

The Court then turned to the recruitment rules framed by Government Notification dated 10.09.1982. It found that those rules contain no gender-based distinction for promotion from Jailor to Deputy Superintendent. The Court observed that the existence of a separate recruitment rule for the post of Female Jailor does not translate into a bar against Female Jailors being considered for the next promotional grade. In the absence of any specific rule creating such a restriction, the Court held there was “no legal scope to deprive the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail on the ground of gender discrimination.”

The Court also addressed the conduct of the respondents following the earlier judicial direction. The co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No.826 of 2024 had directed consideration of Datta's case for promotion by order dated 07.01.2025. Rather than comply, the respondents issued the impugned communication of 01.05.2025 rejecting her eligibility. Justice Palit held that the respondent authority had failed to comply with that earlier direction and that the impugned communication “was not proper and in accordance with the settled principle of law.”

The Court drew support from the observations in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors., where the Supreme Court had held that arguments founded on assumptions about women's social roles — including domestic obligations and physiological differences — do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity. The Court applied the principle of those observations to the facts at hand, where the denial of promotional consideration appeared to rest on nothing more than the petitioner's gender.

Outcome

Justice Palit allowed the writ petition and quashed the communication dated 01.05.2025 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura. The respondent authority has been directed to consider Datta's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail within three months from the date of the judgment, provided she is found eligible under all applicable criteria and norms.

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment and order be communicated to the office of the Advocate General of Tripura for the purpose of taking up the matter with the respondent authority. Datta has also been given liberty to communicate the judgment and order to the respondent authority within seven days of receiving a copy. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.