AKIL KURESHI,J. - (1.)The petitioner has challenged an order dated 8th June, 2019 by which his representation for being posted on the post of Executive Engineer as Current Duty Charge came to be rejected.
(2.)Brief facts are as under :
Petitioner is presently holding the post of Assistant Engineer in the Rural Development Department of Government of Tripura. Next promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer is to that of the Executive Engineer. There are two streams of promotion namely, 'Degree-holders ' and 'Diploma-holders ' in different proportions provided under the Recruitment Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that persons who are either junior to him or ineligible to be promoted on regular basis to the post of Executive Engineer are given such Current Duty Charge. The petitioner's claim is ignored.

(3.)To the same grievance the petitioner had previously filed WP(C) No.688/2018. Learned Single Judge disposed of the petition on 8th April, 2019 in following manner:
"3. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner and the private respondents no.4, 5, 6 and 7 are similarly situated persons but, in the year 2014, the private respondents, that is, Sri Sujit Shil, Sri Saibal Bhattacharjee, Sri Babul Biswas and another, were given Current Duty Charge by an order of the State- respondents. The petitioner has raised his grievance particularly against the benefit given to Sri Babul Biswas, respondent no.5, as both of them belong to Scheduled Caste community.

4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2018 stating inter alia that though he had eligibility to hold the post of Executive Engineer as Current Duty Charge, but, other persons i.e. Sri Sujit Shil, respondent no.4, Sri Babul Biswas, respondent no. 5 and Sri Saibal Bhattacharjee, respondent no. 6, were given that duty and the petitioner was not considered. Admitted fact is that the petitioner did not challenge that decision which means that the petitioner had accepted the benefit given to the respondents no.4, 5 and 6 at that time. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the government in the year 2018 but, in the mean time, the State-respondents have introduced a new Recruitment Rules w.e.f. 02.01.2016. Needless to say, the new Recruitment Rule has already been enforced by the State respondents to govern the service condition of the petitioner and the private respondents.

5. However, this court directs the State- respondents to revisit the issue and to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the prevalent Rules and existing vacancies, now lying with the State- respondents. While deciding the issue, the State- respondents shall keep it in mind that in no way, the petitioner should be discriminated or superseded by any person and his seniority should be considered in respect of allocating Current Duty Charge, if not, as regular Executive Engineer."

;