BAHNISIKHA CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a woman Police Sub -Inspector since 18.8.1981 without a single promotion though she completed qualifying service of 8 years and passed the departmental examination which are essential pre -condition for becoming eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Her grievance is that her junior male Sub -Inspector of Police like Ravi Charan Debbarma was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on 16.3.1996 ignoring her case. She submitted representation on 25.11.1995 but she was informed by the respondent No. 2 that as there was no vacancy in the rank of Inspector of Police (Women) her representation could not be considered. She felt humiliated when she was placed under the junior officer who held higher post superseding her and this was a discrimination on the ground of sex violating the provision of the Constitution. Though the Recruitment Rules for Sub -Inspectors (Unarmed) notified on 18.2.1981 which are only feeder posts for Inspectors (Unarmed), do not contemplate any discrimination on the basis of gender, the doors to that wing have been closed by providing a discriminatory height requirement. The impugned notification dated 10.2.1984 (Annexure -R/5) provided that only Sub -Inspectors of Police (Unarmed Branch) and Sub -Inspectors of Women Police who have completed at least 8 years service in the grade and have passed pre -promotion examination shall be eligible for promotion as Inspectors in the respective wing. The words 'respective wing' appearing in the impugned notification debar the women Police Sub -Inspectors from getting promotion to the posts of Inspector (Unarmed) though there exists no provision in the Recruitment Rules for Inspectors (Unarmed) that the posts were meant for male Sub -Inspectors only. Her prayer is to declare the impugned notification dated 10.2.1984 to the extent it restricts the promotion to the post of Inspector (Unarmed) from Sub -Inspector (Unarmed) only as invalid, unconstitutional and void. Her other prayer is to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider her promotion to the post of Inspector of Police and other higher posts.

(2.) The State respondents contested the case stating that a separate wing in the Police organization for women police only is a special provision for women which are quite consistent with the constitutional goal. Recruitment rules for several wings exist, i.e. Recruitment Rules for Sub -Inspectors of Police (women), for Sub -Inspectors of Police (Unarmed) and for Sub -Inspectors of Police (Armour) have been separately framed. Similar provisions for the posts of Inspectors in the respective rules have also been framed without any inter -mingling in the promotional procedure. The Sub -Inspectors of Police (Women) are the only feeder posts for Inspector of Police (Women). Similarly Sub -Inspectors of Police (Unarmed) are the feeder posts of Inspector of Police (Unarmed) and so on. The petitioner has not challenged those Recruitment rules, but has only assailed the notification dated 10.2.1984 by which the Governor promulgated the pre -promotion examination regulations for implementation of the requirements of the Recruitment rules for the posts of Inspectors which provide that 8 years service in the Sub -Inspector grade and passing of pre -promotion examination shall be the eligibility condition for promotion. These provisions in the impugned notification are consistent with the. Recruitment rules for the posts of Inspectors in Women wing and Unarmed wing which provide that promotion shall be only from the Sub -Inspectors of Police with 8 years service in the grade and passing of pre -promotion examination. Thus, the impugned notification having been not inconsistent with the recruitment rules, the same cannot be said to be unconstitutional. As regards her claim for promotion, the contention of the respondents is that there exists one post of Inspector which has been held by her senior and till any vacancy arises, she cannot be considered for promotion. The allegation that her juniors were promoted superseding her has been denied on the ground that none of the Sub -Inspectors (women) who is junior to her has superseded her and that the Sub -Inspectors in the Unarmed Branch which constitute a separate cadre cannot be equated or compared to her or other women Sub -Inspectors for the purpose of seniority or promotion.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior G.A. assisted by Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned advocate for the respondents.