Tripura HC Upholds TSR Riflemen Recruitment: Inside and Outside State Quotas Must Be Read Together for SC/ST Reservation Cap
The High Court of Tripura dismissed writ petitions challenging the 2019 TSR Riflemen recruitment, holding that the 17% SC and 31% ST reservation caps under the Tripura Reservation Act were correctly computed across the total 1,350 vacancies, not the inside-State quota alone.
Seven batch writ petitions filed by over 60 unsuccessful candidates challenged a 2019 recruitment advertisement issued by the Tripura Police for 1,350 posts of Riflemen (General Duty) and Riflemen (Tradesmen) in two newly raised IR Battalions of the Tripura State Rifles. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, sitting singly at Agartala, dismissed all the petitions by a common judgment on 22 May 2026. The central question was whether the recruiting authority had breached the maximum reservation ceilings for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by computing those ceilings only against the inside-State quota of 1,013 posts, rather than the combined total of 1,350 posts. The court held that the caps were properly maintained when both quotas were read as a single unit, and rejected the remaining challenges on venue restriction and the inclusion of reserved-category candidates in the unreserved merit list.
The Recruitment Advertisement and the Petitioners’ Grievance
The advertisement dated 7 March 2019 was issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (TSR) for the Director General of Police, Tripura. It divided the 1,350 Riflemen (GD) posts into two streams: 1,013 posts under an “inside State quota” for residents of Tripura, and 337 posts under an “outside State quota” for candidates from other States. Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was applied only within the inside-State quota. Of those 1,013 posts, 230 (approximately 22%) were earmarked for SC candidates and 418 (approximately 41%) for ST candidates — together accounting for roughly 63% of the inside-State quota.
The petitioners, all of whom participated in the selection process and were unsuccessful at the viva-voce stage, argued that this arrangement violated Section 4(1) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991. That provision caps SC reservation at 17% and ST reservation at 31% of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. By confining the calculation to the inside-State quota alone, the petitioners contended, the recruiting authority had pushed SC reservation to 22% and ST reservation to 41%, far exceeding the statutory maxima and thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Legal Challenge: Statutory Cap and Constitutional Rights
Senior Advocate Mr. Somik Deb, appearing for the petitioners, pressed two distinct grounds. The first was the alleged breach of the 17% and 31% ceilings under Section 4(1) of the Reservation Act of 1991. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217, which established that reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50% of appointments in any given year. He also placed reliance on Tripurari Sharan and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 656, and the Constitution Bench decision in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister and Others, (2021) 8 SCC 1, both of which reiterated the 50% ceiling. Mr. Deb further cited this court’s own earlier decision in Kinkar Bhowmik v. State of Tripura and Ors., WP(C) 264 of 2024, decided on 12 August 2025, and a subsequent bench judgment in Shri Abhijit Das v. State of Tripura and Ors., WP(C) No.77 of 2025, decided on 20 August 2025, both of which had applied Section 4(1) of the 1991 Act strictly. He also referred to a decision of the Orissa High Court in Dr. Arabinda Panda & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., WP(C) No.13778 of 2025, decided on 17 March 2026, where a similar excess in reservation for Medical Officer posts was struck down.
Mr. Deb argued that since the two IR Battalions were newly created, the carry-forward method could not justify the excess, and the State had not claimed otherwise. Counsel Ms. R. Guha added that the excess reservation also violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
The second ground concerned the venue stipulation in the advertisement, which required candidates to submit applications and appear for tests at a specified centre corresponding to their area of residence. Mr. Deb argued this curtailed a candidate’s right to apply from any venue of choice, particularly for those residing away from their home districts.
The State’s Defence: One Post, One Combined Vacancy Pool
Advocate General Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, appearing for the State respondents, countered that the petitioners were creating an artificial distinction between the inside-State and outside-State streams. He submitted that both streams related to the same post — Riflemen (General Duty) — and the total vacancy pool was 1,350. Clause 8 of the advertisement, he pointed out, prescribed a common test for all candidates in this category, reinforcing that the post was a single identifiable unit.
On that basis, the Advocate General computed the reservation figures across the combined 1,350 posts: 230 SC posts amounted to 17.03% and 418 ST posts amounted to 30.96%, both within the statutory limits of 17% and 31% respectively under Section 4(1) of the 1991 Act. He relied on R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745, for the proposition that a “vacancy” presupposes an existing post, and that the relevant post here was a single one.
The Advocate General also raised the plea of acquiescence: the petitioners had participated throughout the selection process, including the physical tests and written examination, and raised objections only after failing at the viva-voce stage. He submitted that allowing the challenge at this stage would be disastrous for the many candidates already selected and in service.
In reply, Mr. Deb argued that a violation of Articles 14 and 16 — being fundamental rights — cannot be waived by estoppel, citing the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench decision in Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 527.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Datta Purkayastha accepted the State’s core submission. The court read Section 4(1) of the Reservation Act of 1991 as requiring the reservation percentage to be computed against the total vacancy of a particular post or service, not against any sub-division of that vacancy. The provision speaks of “any vacancy or vacancies in services or posts in an establishment” without authorising a further internal split for the purpose of computing the reserved quota.
The court noted that when the inside-State quota of 1,013 posts and the outside-State quota of 337 posts were taken together, the 230 SC posts worked out to 17.3% and the 418 ST posts to 30.96% — both within the statutory ceilings. The court expressly declined to examine whether it was proper to restrict SC and ST reservation entirely to the inside-State quota while leaving the outside-State quota as unreserved, observing that this specific question had not been challenged in the petitions.
On the challenge in W.P.(C) No.250 of 2022 and related petitions that 54 reserved-category candidates were illegally recommended against UR category posts in the final merit list, the court dismissed this too. Section 4(1)(b) of the 1991 Act expressly provides that reserved-category candidates who qualify on merit shall be included in the general list and not counted against the reserved quota. The inclusion of such candidates in the UR list was therefore in conformity with the statute.
On the venue restriction, the court held that it is within the competence of a selection committee to devise its own procedure for collecting applications and conducting tests, including specifying venues for groups of candidates. A candidate has no enforceable right to choose a particular venue. The court also noted that the petitioners had themselves filed applications through the specified venues and participated in the process, making an estoppel argument additionally available against them on this point.
Outcome
All seven writ petitions — W.P.(C) No.196 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.250 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.298 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.832 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.92 of 2025, W.P.(C) No.206 of 2025, and W.P.(C) No.536 of 2025 — were dismissed. No order as to costs was made. All pending interim applications were disposed of accordingly.