The Tripura High Courthas held that a woman’s promotional prospects cannot be curtailed on the ground of gender where the applicable recruitment rules do not prescribe any such distinction. Allowing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Justice Biswajit Palit quashed the communication issued by the Inspector General of Prisons declaring her ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail and directed the State authorities to reconsider her case within three months, if she satisfies all the prescribed eligibility criteria.
The petitioner had joined service as a Female Sub-Jailor in 1997 and was promoted as Female Jailor in 2018 pursuant to an earlier direction of the High Court. Upon completing five years in the promotional post, she claimed eligibility for promotion as Deputy Superintendent under the applicable recruitment rules. However, despite a previous High Court direction requiring the authorities to consider her claim, the Inspector General of Prisons informed her in May 2025 that she was not eligible for promotion, prompting the present writ petition.
Before the Court, the petitioner contended that the recruitment rules governing promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent made no distinction between Male Jailors and Female Jailors. She argued that denying her promotion solely because she was a woman amounted to unconstitutional gender discrimination. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) 7 SCC 469 , which condemned gender stereotypes as a basis for denying equal opportunities to women in public service.
The State opposed the petition, contending that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and referring to the existence of separate recruitment rules for the post of Female Jailor. It nevertheless suggested that the petitioner could submit a representation for consideration by the authorities.
Rejecting the State’s stand, the High Court observed that there was no adverse material regarding the petitioner’s service record and that the applicable recruitment rules did not create any gender-based distinction for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. The Court held that, in the absence of any specific statutory provision, there was no legal basis to deny promotion to an otherwise eligible Female Jailor on the ground of gender. It further found that the authorities had failed to comply with the earlier direction of the High Court to consider the petitioner’s case and that the impugned communication was contrary to the recruitment rules and the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the communication dated 1 May 2025 and directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Home) Jail within three months, subject to her fulfilling all the applicable eligibility criteria and the governing norms.
