The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea challenging a notification requiring permanent resident certificates for job applications in Tripura government and semi-government sectors. The bench, consisting of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, directed the petitioner to seek redress in the High Court of Tripura instead.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the notification imposed a requirement for applicants to prove permanent residency in Tripura to qualify for state government jobs. The counsel cited a recent Supreme Court verdict that declared domicile-based reservation in postgraduate medical courses unconstitutional, suggesting a potential conflict with the current notification.
The bench, however, questioned the necessity of bringing the issue directly to the Supreme Court, asking, “Why can’t you raise all these issues before the high court? Why can’t you go to the high court?” This prompted a discussion on the capacity of high courts to address questions of law, with the justices affirming their competence in such matters.
Facing the court’s reluctance to proceed with the case, the petitioner’s counsel opted to withdraw the plea, taking the liberty to approach the Tripura High Court for further action.
Additionally, the counsel referred to a related case concerning the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, which, according to a February 2024 order from the Tripura High Court, had not adopted the contested government notification. The state’s advocate general had argued that the Council operated as an independent or autonomous entity, leading to the high court’s acknowledgment of the state’s position.
With this backdrop, the Supreme Court bench concluded that when a statement is made by a constitutional functionary, relevant authorities are expected to comply, thereby reinforcing the importance of adhering to legal protocols and the roles of constitutional offices in governance.
