JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. G.S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. All these petitions being Sri Bhabatosh Bhowmik vs. The State of Tripura and Others, WP (C) No. 750 of 2017, Sri Kishore Chandra Barik vs. The State of Tripura and Others, WP (C) No. 767 of 2017, Sri Partha Sarathi Sarkar vs. The State of Tripura and Others, WP (C) No. 768 of 2017, Sri Gopesh Sarkar vs. The State of Tripura and Others, WP (C) No. 769 of 2017 and Sri Dinesh Majumder vs. The State of Tripura and Others, WP (C) No. 770 of 2017, are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a common question wades through all these writ petitions. 3. The writ petitioners who were earlier working as the Havilder (Radio Wireless Operator) in the Tripura State Rifles (TSR in short) under the Home Department, Government of Tripura applied for their appointment as Wireless Operator (ASI) under the Home Department, Government of Tripura as the direct recruites. On their selection, they were also appointed as Wireless Operator (ASI) under the Tripura Police Communication Organization. By the impugned order dated 01.07.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the communication dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) all the petitioners were directed by the Superintendent of Police (Communication) to undergo Police Wireless Operator (Grade-II) training. When the petitioners asserted that they had completed such course when they were working as the Havilder (Radio Operator) under the TSR, the Superintendent (Communication), the respondent no. 3 herein insisted that they still have to go for the training. Unless they have completed such training, they will not be considered for promotion to the next Grade, Supervisor under the Tripura Police Communication Organization. 4. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred a notification under no. 13007-50/F.9/COMN-RSV/2006-07 dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). By the said notification, results of Grade-II, Wireless Operator course was published. From a bare perusal of the said notification dated 26.09.2007, it transpires that both the Havilder (Radio Operator) and the Wireless Operator (ASI) under the Tripura Police Communication Organization had participated in the said course and after they completed the said course, their performance result was declared by the said notification. From a bare perusal of the said notification dated 26.09.2007, it transpires that both the Havilder (Radio Operator) and the Wireless Operator (ASI) under the Tripura Police Communication Organization had participated in the said course and after they completed the said course, their performance result was declared by the said notification. Therefore, there cannot be any embargo to infer that the course and the tenure of the course were same and the Wireless Operator (ASI) under Tripura Police Communication Organization had undergone the same course. Therefore, for any reason, the petitioners cannot logically be directed to repeat the same course. 5. No reason has been also expressed. In the reply filed by the respondents in support of repeating of the course by the petitioners, the respondents in their reply has stated as under: “..........For nominating to undergo PWO-II training a seniority list is being maintained and accordingly one Wireless Operator (ASI) put for the said upgradation course. The appointing authority here the S.P. (Communication), Tripura has every right to direct an eligible candidate to undergo next upgradation course which is already laid down by D.C.P.W., MHA, New Delhi Syllabus Committee Report. Hence, the demonstration made by the petitioner in the writ petition and the allegation labeled are totally incorrect and imaginary. Thus, the writ petition has no merit and deserved to be dismissed.” They have further averred in paragraph 13 of the said reply that the petitioner was initially appointed as Havilder (Radio) in Tripura State Rifles. Subsequently against the direct recruitment form the open category he was appointed as Wireless Operator (ASI) in the Tripura Police Communication Organization. They have further averred that the petitioner was appointed as Havilder (Radio) in TSR. As Havilder (Radio) in TSR the petitioner completed the Wireless Operator Grade III course and then Grade II training as TSR personnel, but that is not at all similar to the training as per the R.R. of the Wireless Operator (ASI) of the Tripura Police Communication Organization. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed against direct quota in open category to the post of Wireless Operator (ASI), under the Tripura Police Communication Organization to the existing vacancies through the selection process completing all the eligible criteria’s as laid down in the Recruitment Rules (R.R.) of the post of Wireless Operator (ASI) in Tripura Police Communication Organisation. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed against direct quota in open category to the post of Wireless Operator (ASI), under the Tripura Police Communication Organization to the existing vacancies through the selection process completing all the eligible criteria’s as laid down in the Recruitment Rules (R.R.) of the post of Wireless Operator (ASI) in Tripura Police Communication Organisation. As per Recruitment Rules one Wireless Operator (ASI) become eligible for promotion to the rank of Supervisor (Operational) after completion of Police Wireless Operator Grade-II training and as per Syllabus Committee Report of Directorate of Co-ordination Police Wireless, MHA, New Delhi. They are eligible for Grade II training after completion of 03 years of service in the post of Wireless Operator (ASI) for nominating to undergo Police Wireless Operator-II training and a seniority list is being maintained and accordingly one Wireless Operator (ASI) put for the said upgradation course. 6. When this court found the analogy as provided under paragraph 14 of the reply quite unsatisfactory and it require further clarification by the orders dated 25.07.2017 and 26.07.2017 directed the respondents to clarify the following two points: (i) Whether those who have not cleared the upgradation course would be considered to the promotion to the post of Supervisor (Operational) or not? (ii) Whether all the Wireless Operators (ASI) who had cleared Police Wireless Operator Grade-II course would be required to go for the upgradation course or not?’ 7. By filing the additional affidavit, the respondents had replied inter-alia as under: “The petitioner along with 04 others who were asked for the fresh training for the Grade-II, Wireless Operator Training, is the mandatory for all the Wireless Operator (ASI), under the Police Department irrespective of whether they already undergone any Gr-II Wireless Operator training being other capacity/under another service or not. I have to state that, every Wireless Operator (ASI) under the Police Department who already completed 03 years of continuous service would have to undergo fresh training Grade-II, Wireless Operator Training which is next upgradation course which is already laid down by D.C.P.W., MHA, New Delhi Syllabus Committee Report, and it is mandatory. All the eligible incumbents would be asked to undergo the Gr-II, Wireless Operator Trainign which is next upgradation course which is already laid down by D.C.P.W., MHA, New Delhi Syllabus Committee Report.” 8. Mr. All the eligible incumbents would be asked to undergo the Gr-II, Wireless Operator Trainign which is next upgradation course which is already laid down by D.C.P.W., MHA, New Delhi Syllabus Committee Report.” 8. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that paragraph 14 of the reply as filed by the respondents is wholly misconceived and such analogy cannot be sustained. On such analogy, the petitioners cannot be asked to go for the Police Wireless Operator, Grade-II course, but Mr. GS Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has in order to repel the submission made by Mr. Deb, learned counsel that all the Wireless Operators (ASI) shall have to undergo the next upgradation training course irrespective of whether they have undergone Wireless Operator (Grade-II) training. 9. Having regard to the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the reply filed by the respondents and also on appreciating the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the stand taken in the reply and the additional affidavit are quite contradictory. From a reading of paragraph 14, it would transpire clearly that the respondent no. 3 insisted for Police Wireless Operator, Grade-II course by stating that that is not at all similar to the training as per the R.R. of the Wireless Operator (ASI) of the Tripura Police Communication Organization. This statement has been made in respect of the Wireless Operator, (Grade-II) training. From the Recruitment Rules for the Supervisor (Operational/Crypto) in the Tripura Police Communication Organization, it appears that the requirement is Grade-II proficiency examination and 3 (three) years service as Wireless Operator for promotion to the post of Supervisor (Operational/Crypto). However, by the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been clarified further that the upgradation course shall be mandatory for all the Wireless Operator (ASI). According to the respondents, all the eligible incumbents would be asked to undergo the Grade-II, Wireless Operator Training (Upgradation Course) as laid down by the D.C.P.W., MHA, New Delhi. 10. This court finds that even after the additional affidavit, the respondents have not clearly stated whether the Radio Operator (ASI) who had undergone the police Wireless Operator (Grade-II) course would again be required to undergo the course called Upgradation Course or not. 10. This court finds that even after the additional affidavit, the respondents have not clearly stated whether the Radio Operator (ASI) who had undergone the police Wireless Operator (Grade-II) course would again be required to undergo the course called Upgradation Course or not. Be that as it may, this court is of the view that since the courses undergone by the petitioner as Havilder (Radio Operator) are exactly the similar course that of the Police Wireless operator (Grade II) course as would be apparent from the notification dated 26.09.2007, the respondents cannot send the petitioner for training for their recruitment in the post of Wireless Operator (ASI) under the Tripura Police Communication Organization for purpose of considering their promotion to the post of Supervisor (Operational/Crepto). If all the Wireless Operators (ASI) who had undergone the said Police Wireless Operator (Grade-II) course are sent for upgrading their skill/knowledge, the petitioner may be sent, in order of seniority, as the respondent no. 3 has clearly stated in the reply that for training the Wireless Operator (ASI) are sent on the basis of their seniority. But this court is of the view that upgradation course only can be treated as mandatory if that has formed the part of the Police Wireless Operator (Grade-II) course else those persons who have already completed Police Wireless Operator (Grade-II) course shall be considered for their promotion to the post of Supervisor (Operational/Crepto). Upgradation course can be availed by anybody at any point of time even after the promotion, when the said course is not pre-requisite for consideration of promotion. 11. With this observation, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.