Legitimate Expectation & Equal Pay for Equal Work | Selective Absorption of Contract Teachers Violates Article 14: Tripura HC

The Tripura High Court has reaffirmed that the state cannot selectively implement absorption schemes for similarly situated contract teachers while excluding others, even where administrative convenience is claimed. This judgment enforces the constitutional mandate of equal treatment and upholds the principle that legitimate expectations created by state policy must be honored.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Dr. Anamika Das, was appointed as a Part-Time Contract Teacher in Degree Colleges under the Department of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, in 2007. She was later appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) pursuant to a state policy decision dated 26.06.2010, which converted 292 such contract teachers into PGTs with a pay scale of Rs.5,310 - 24,000 and grade pay of Rs.2,400 per month. Despite discharging the duties of Assistant Professors in colleges and possessing the requisite UGC qualifications (NET/SLET/SET/Ph.D.), she was not placed in the pay scale or designation of Assistant Professor, contrary to UGC guidelines.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Contract Teacher on 01.07.2007.
• She was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher under the state policy dated 26.06.2010.
• She possesses the minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professor under UGC norms.
• She has been continuously serving in the capacity of Assistant Professor since 2010.
• On 16.03.2021, the Tripura High Court, in WP(C) No.1391/2019 and batch, held that PGTs discharging duties of Assistant Professors are entitled to equal pay and directed the state to frame an absorption scheme.
• The state framed a scheme dated 21.09.2022, providing for absorption of PGTs with 12 years of continuous service and requisite qualifications as Assistant Professors.
• On 05.01.2023, 16 out of 21 eligible PGTs (including those with similar qualifications and service) were absorbed as Assistant Professors.
• The petitioner, despite meeting all criteria and having her writ petition WP(C) No.257/2021 allowed by this Court on 28.11.2022, was excluded from absorption.
• A representation dated 18.01.2025 was issued by the state, regretting the petitioner’s absorption on grounds of non-availability of vacancy in Philosophy.
• On 13.02.2025, the state issued a memorandum withdrawing the entire absorption scheme dated 21.09.2022.
• On 05.03.2026, the Division Bench of this Court granted relief to another similarly situated candidate, Dr. Sumana Majumdar, in WA No.13/2026, affirming the binding nature of the earlier judgment.

Procedural History

• 26.06.2010: State policy issued for appointment of 292 PGTs.
• 16.03.2021: Single Judge held PGTs entitled to Assistant Professor pay and directed framing of absorption scheme.
• 14.12.2021: Division Bench stayed paragraph 14 of the 2021 judgment but directed implementation of paragraph 15 (absorption scheme).
• 21.09.2022: State issued absorption scheme for PGTs with 12 years’ service and UGC qualifications.
• 17.05.2023: Division Bench confirmed paragraph 15 of the 2021 judgment.
• 28.11.2022: Single Judge allowed WP(C) No.257/2021 and directed absorption within six weeks.
• 05.01.2023: 16 PGTs absorbed; petitioner excluded.
• 13.02.2025: State withdrew the 21.09.2022 scheme.
• 18.01.2025: Memo issued denying petitioner’s absorption citing non-availability of vacancy.
• 05.03.2026: Division Bench granted relief to Dr. Sumana Majumdar in WA No.13/2026.
• 07.04.2026: Present writ petition heard and decided.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Arijit Bhattacharjee and Ms. Ishpa Chakma, argued that:

• She meets all eligibility criteria under the 21.09.2022 scheme.
• She was specifically directed for absorption by the Court’s order dated 28.11.2022.
• The state has absorbed 16 other similarly situated candidates, proving the existence of vacancies.
• The withdrawal of the scheme on 13.02.2025 and denial of absorption on 18.01.2025 are arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• The state cannot selectively implement a scheme it itself framed and then deny relief to one eligible candidate.
• The judgment in WA No.13/2026 dated 05.03.2026 is directly applicable.

For the Respondent

The State, represented by Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. GA, admitted the petitioner’s service and qualifications but contended:

• There was no vacancy in the Philosophy subject at the time of absorption.
• The withdrawal of the scheme was based on administrative review.
• The petitioner’s claim cannot override the state’s discretion in filling posts.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Absorption as Assistant Professor (Philosophy) with effect from 05.01.2023, the date of absorption of other similarly placed candidates.
• Payment of pay scale and allowances applicable to Assistant Professor from the date of service.
• Quashing of the memorandum dated 18.01.2025 and 13.02.2025.
• Enforcement of the promise made in the letter dated 05.01.2023.
• Direction to implement the 21.09.2022 scheme in her favor.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the state can deny absorption to a qualified, long-serving contract teacher who meets all criteria under a state-framed scheme, after having absorbed other similarly situated candidates, and after a court had previously directed such absorption - thereby violating the principles of equality, non-arbitrariness, and legitimate expectation.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. Nand Lal and State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to argue that once a state frames a scheme and implements it for others, it cannot arbitrarily exclude an equally eligible candidate. She cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to emphasize that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and non-discriminatorily. The judgment in WA No.13/2026 dated 05.03.2026 was cited as binding precedent directly applicable to her case.

For the Respondent

The State contended that absorption is subject to availability of posts and that the withdrawal of the scheme was a policy decision. It argued that the petitioner’s exclusion was not discriminatory but based on administrative constraints, and that the Court’s earlier direction in WP(C) No.257/2021 was conditional on vacancy availability.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the judgment delivered in WA No.13/2026 dated 05.03.2026, which had already addressed the same legal issues. The Court observed that the state had not challenged the validity of the 21.09.2022 scheme in any of the earlier cases involving other PGTs, and had actively implemented it for 16 candidates. The Court emphasized that the state cannot selectively enforce its own policy to the benefit of some and the detriment of others.

"The State cannot selectively allow some PGTs to get absorbed as Assistant Professors while opposing the appellant's claim for the same by raising pleas which it had not raised when other persons similar to the appellant had approached this Court."

The Court further held that the state’s reliance on non-availability of vacancy was unsustainable, given that 16 other candidates had been absorbed in the same subject category and that the petitioner had been specifically directed for absorption in 2022. The withdrawal of the scheme on 13.02.2025 was held to be an abuse of power, as it was done after the petitioner had relied on the scheme and after the Court had already directed her absorption.

The Court rejected the state’s argument that administrative discretion permits arbitrary exclusion, noting that such discretion must be exercised in accordance with constitutional norms. The principle of legitimate expectation, recognized in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, was applied to protect the petitioner’s settled expectation of absorption under a publicly notified scheme.

The Court also clarified that a coordinate bench cannot ignore a prior judgment merely because it considers it incorrect; the only remedies are to follow it or refer it to a larger bench - a principle affirmed in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer.

The Verdict

The petitioner succeeded. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of judgment. The memorandum dated 18.01.2025 and the withdrawal memo dated 13.02.2025 were set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to pay and allowances of Assistant Professor from 05.01.2023, the date of absorption of other similarly situated candidates, with arrears to be calculated and paid within 45 days of absorption.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Absorption Schemes Cannot Be Applied Selectively

• Practitioners must challenge any state action that implements a recruitment or absorption scheme for some eligible candidates while excluding others with identical qualifications and service.
• The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies even where the scheme is not statutory, if it is publicly notified and relied upon by candidates.

Administrative Discretion Is Not Absolute

• Claims of "non-availability of posts" cannot be invoked to deny absorption after similar posts have been filled for others.
• Courts will scrutinize whether vacancies were genuinely unavailable or whether the state created artificial barriers to avoid compliance.

Precedent Binding on Coordinate Benches

• A judgment delivered by a coordinate bench on identical facts cannot be ignored on grounds of perceived error.

• Practitioners should cite such judgments as binding authority in pending matters involving the same policy or scheme.

• Always verify whether the state has implemented a scheme for others before challenging exclusion.

• File writ petitions citing WA No.13/2026 and State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer as controlling precedents.

• Demand arrears from the date of absorption of the first similarly situated candidate, not from the date of judgment.