Tripura HC stays prosecution recruitment over residence rule, questioning constitutional validity under Article 16(2) in public employment and directing state authorities to respond before June 16, 2026.
A constitutional debate over public employment eligibility has emerged in Tripura after the High Court temporarily halted recruitment proceedings for two senior positions in the Directorate of Prosecution. The court observed that the state government’s residence requirement for public employment appears, at first glance, to violate constitutional protections against discrimination based on place of residence.
The interim order was issued by a division bench of the Tripura High Court while hearing a writ petition challenging a July 7, 2023 notification issued by the Tripura government. The notification had prescribed residence conditions for appointments in government departments, corporations, boards, and public sector undertakings under the state administration.
The bench, comprising MS Ramchandra Rao and Biswajit Palit, ordered a stay on all further proceedings connected to Advertisement No.20/2025 and Advertisement No.22/2025. These advertisements were issued for recruitment to the posts of Director and Deputy Director in the Directorate of Prosecution under the Home Department.
In its observation, the court stated that the prescription of residence requirements for employment under the state “appears to be contrary to Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India,” which prohibits discrimination in public employment on grounds including residence.
The bench further clarified that while Article 16(2) restricts such discrimination, Article 16(3) grants only Parliament the authority to create laws imposing residential qualifications for specific categories of employment. The judges noted that no such parliamentary law appeared to support the Tripura government’s notification.
During the hearing, the court referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Kailash Chand Sharma vs State of Rajasthan. In that ruling, the apex court had held that residence within a state, district, or smaller region cannot independently become the basis for preferential treatment or reservation in public employment unless specifically authorized under Article 16(3).
The bench also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Telangana Judges Association vs Union of India, where the apex court observed that nativity-based preferences in government jobs run contrary to constitutional guarantees unless backed by legislation enacted by Parliament.
The amended writ petition was formally taken on record during the proceedings. Government Advocate Kohinoor Narayan Bhattacharyya accepted notice on behalf of the respondents, including the State of Tripura represented by the Chief Secretary and the Department of General Administration (Personal & Training).
Meanwhile, counsel Kundan Pandey, led by senior advocate Somik Deb, appeared for respondent number three, the Tripura Public Service Commission represented by its Chairman.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on June 16, 2026. The High Court has directed the respondents to file counter affidavits before the next hearing date.
| Also Read: Tripura HC Orders CCTV Preservation In Assault And Police Inaction Case |
The case is expected to have wider implications for state-level recruitment policies across India, particularly in regions where domicile or residence-based employment conditions have increasingly become subjects of constitutional scrutiny. Legal experts believe the outcome may influence future interpretations of equality in public employment under the Indian Constitution.
