The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea against a Tripura government notification requiring Permanent Resident Certificates for job applications. The court suggested that the petitioner approach the Tripura High Court instead, highlighting the appropriate jurisdiction for such matters. The plea was withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to pursue the case in the high court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging a Tripura government notification mandating Permanent Resident Certificates (PRC) for job applications in state departments. The court advised the petitioner to approach the Tripura High Court instead.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih questioned the petitioner’s counsel, asking,
“Whether the High Court of Tripura is on leave?”,
expressing its reluctance to examine the case. Following this, the petition was withdrawn with the liberty to move the high court.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the notification required applicants to possess a PRC for employment in government and semi-government bodies in Tripura. He referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment, which held that domicile-based reservation in postgraduate medical courses was unconstitutional. However, the bench was firm in its stance, asking,
“Why can’t you raise all these issues before the high court?”
ALSO READ: Interim Budget | Law ministry gets Rs 6461 crore allocation
The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the issue involved a larger question of law, but the bench responded,
“Whether the high courts are not empowered to decide on them?”
This led to the withdrawal of the plea with an option to approach the jurisdictional high court.
Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel referred to another case listed before the bench, which challenged a February 2024 Tripura High Court order related to the notification. The high court had noted the advocate general’s submission that the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) was an independent entity and had not officially adopted the government notification.
ALSO READ: Law Ministry Endorses Parliamentary Committee’s Call for Regional Supreme Court Benches
The Supreme Court, taking note of the advocate general’s statement, observed,
“When a statement is made before a court by a constitutional functionary, the authorities are bound to abide by the same,”
and subsequently disposed of the plea.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES