Rupak Majumder vs The State of Tripura and 4 Ors.
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010021842025 2026:THC:1354
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.262 of 2026
Rupak Majumder,
Son of Sri Rakhal Majumder,
Resident of near Garijetila, SBC Nagar,
Belonia, South Tripura,
PIN:799 155, Age: 23 years
----Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
(to be represented by) the Principal Secretary,
Education (School) Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Cpital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN:799 010
2. The Principal Secretary,
Education (School) Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Cpital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN:799 010
3. Teachers Recruitment Board,
Tripura (TRBT) (to be represented by) the Chairman,
Teachers‟ Recruitment Board,
Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN:799 001
4. The Member Secretary,
Teachers‟ Recruitment Board, Tripura,
Tripura (TRBT), Shiksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN:799 001
5. The Controller of Examinations,
Teachers‟ Recruitment Board,
Tripura (TRBT), Shiksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN:799 001
---- Respondents (s)
Page 2 of 10
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of Hearing : 15.09.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 24.09.2026
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
following reliefs:
(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other
order/orders shall not be issued whereby quashing and
cancelling the impugned Order, dated 28.07.2025, issued
by the Controller of Examinations, Teachers’ Recruitment
Board, Tripura (TRBT).
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to
why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other
order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents to correct & republish the Result of the
Petitioner in T-TET 2024, Paper-I, and hold the same to
90 marks by awarding 01 more mark for his answer
“Group factor theory” to Question No.9 of T-TET 2024,
Paper-I.
(iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as
to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any
other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing
the Respondents to declare the Petitioner as
successful/passed in T-TET 2024, and thereafter,
facilitate scrutiny of documents/certificates/mark-sheets
of Petitioner on being declared to have scored 90 marks
in terms of the Notice, dated 26.06.2025.
AND
Call for the records pertaining to the instant Writ Petition
from the custody of the Respondents and to make the
rule absolute.
AND
After hearing both the parties pass order/orders as this
Hon’ble High Court considers to be fit and proper.
02. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. D. Paul appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. G.A.
Mr. D. Sarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
03. It is the case of the petitioner that against the
notification dated 16.12.2024 issued by TRBT for conducting
T-TET in two papers i.e. paper-I and paper-II. The petitioner
Page 3 of 10
being an eligible candidate having all the requisite
qualification submitted his online application for T-TET
Paper-I, 2024. Paper-I was for a person intending to be a
Teacher of Classes I to V & Paper-II was for a person
intending to be a Teacher of Classes VI to VIII. The
submission of online application was scheduled from
24.01.2025 to 28.02.2025. Thereafter the TRBT issued one
notification that exam of Paper-I will be held on 04.01.2025
[Annexure-2]. It was further submitted that thereafter vide
notice dated 26.03.2025 issued by the TRBT it was informed
to all the candidates that the due date for downloading
Admit Card for T-TET 2024, Paper-I and Paper-II had been
rescheduled from 08.04.2025 and will continue up to
19.04.2025. Later on, vide notice dated 07.04.2025, TRBT
further informed that the date for downloading Admit Card
for T-TET Paper-I and Paper-II had been further
rescheduled from 11.04.2025 and continue up to
22.04.2025. The petitioner downloaded his Admit Card from
the portal having Roll No.13620112405199 (Annexure-4).
Accordingly the petitioner appeared on the scheduled date
and time and sat for T-TET, 2024 Paper-I examination and
in the examination the cut-off marks for T-TET, 2024 Paper-
I was 90 marks. But after collecting of OMR sheets the
petitioner found that he has secured 89 marks. It was
further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that
in the said examination following question was asked:
Page 4 of 10
“9. Anarchic theory of intelligence is also known as
(A) two-factor theory
(B) group factor theory
(C) sampling theory
(D) None of the above”
04. According to the petitioner against the said
question of T-TET, 2024 Paper-I answer was „group factor
theory‟. But no mark was given for the said answer in
favour of the petitioner resulting which in spite of 90 he has
only secured 89 marks. It was further submitted that in the
year 2022 in the same examination similar question was
asked as follows:
7. Anarchic theory of intelligence is also known as
(A) Two-factor theory
(B) Group factor theory
(C) Oligarchic theory
(D) None of the above
The answer of the said question was also B i.e.
„Group factor theory‟ and accordingly the TRBT declared the
final answer keys of T-TET, 2022, Paper-I, Question Booklet
Series A wherein against the question No.7 answer was B
i.e. the answer opted by the petitioner against the same
question during the examination of 2024.
05. Learned Counsel further submitted that after the
declaration of final answer key of T-TET, 2022 Paper-I,
TRBT affirmed it and they did not issue any further
notification that the same answer was wrong. So the answer
attained finality. So in the subsequent examination for the
same question there cannot be any separate answer. Now
the TRBT arbitrarily rejected his answer and gave one less
mark resulting which he has secured only 89 marks.
Page 5 of 10
Learned Counsel further relied upon his OMR answer sheet
(Annexure-C) wherein against question No.9 the petitioner
has answered B. Learned Counsel in support of this present
case also relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court
on 21.08.2026 in WP(C)No.699 of 2025 wherein against the
same question similar view was taken by TRBT and this
Court granted relief in favour of the petitioners of that case.
Learned Counsel fairly submitted that this present case is
squarely covered by the said judgment. It was also
submitted that during the proceeding the TRBT did not
produce the observation of the Expert Committee to
substantiate their defence rather the petitioner based upon
this case relying upon some materials on the basis of which
the earlier case was decided and since the TRBT itself
admitted the said correct answer which was attempted and
given by the petitioner in this present case so there is no
scope to deviate from said fact and they are barred by the
“principle of estoppels” and finally in summing up Learned
Counsel urged for allowing this writ petition.
06. The State-respondents have contested this case
by filing counter-affidavit. In para 9-11 the State-
respondents have asserted as under:
“9. That the averments made by the Petitioner in Para
Nos. 7 to 14 of the Writ Petition are denied, save and
except as specifically admitted hereinafter. It is
submitted that the entire process of the T-TET 2024
examination, including the conduct of the test,
publication of tentative and final answer keys, and the
procedure for challenging questions, was conducted
strictly in accordance with the Prospectus cum
Instruction of T-TET 2024. The Tentative Answer Keys for
T-TET 2024, Paper-I, were published on 08/05/2025 vide
Page 6 of 10
Memo No. F.4 (1-11)/COE/TRBT/2020/ Dated
08/05/2025. Candidates were invited to submit their
objections/claims within a stipulated timeframe. The
deadline for submitting objections was initially fixed as
14/05/2025, which was subsequently extended to
16/05/2025 vide Memo No. F.4 (1-11)
/COE/TRBT/2020/318 dated 13/05/2025.
A copy of the Prospectus cum Instruction of T-TET
2024 is annexed and marked as Annexure R/1.
A copy of the Memo No. F.4 (1-
1)/COE/TRBT/2020/Dated 08/05/2025 is annexed and
marked as Annexure R/2.
A copy of the Memo No. F.4 (1-11)/COE/TRBT
/2020/318 dated 13/05/2025 is annexed and marked as
Annexure R/3.
The Petitioner, despite being aware of the
examination process and the available mechanism for
raising objections, failed to challenge the specific
question in dispute, namely Question No. 9 of Booklet
Series A, Question No. 18 in Booklet Series B, and
Question No. 30 in Booklet Series C, which pertains to
"Anarchic Theory of Intelligence". The Petitioner's
Registration No. and Roll No. are annexed as ANNEXURE-
R/5, and it is evident from ANNEXURE-R/4 (listing
candidates who challenged the question) that the
Petitioner did not avail this opportunity. Petitioner,
therefore, did not utilize the prescribed and available
statutory remedy for challenging the question within the
stipulated timeframe.
A copy of the details of registration no. and Roll no.
of candidates challenged the question is annexed and
marked as Annexure R/4.
A copy of the Petitioner's Registration No. and Roll
No. is annexed and marked as Annexure R/5.
All objections/claims submitted by other
candidates were duly placed before subject experts for
examination. Based on the experts' opinions, the
Respondent (TRBT) prepared and published the Final
Answer Keys for T-TET 2024, Paper-1, on 09/06/2025
vide Memo No. F.4 (1-1) /COE/TRBT/2020/425 dated
09/06/2025. The results were prepared and published
based on these Final Answer Keys. The Respondent
(TRBT) has addressed each and every
challenge/claim/objection submitted by the candidates,
relying on the expert opinions of the respective subject
matter experts. The correct answer to the disputed
question was also determined by the subject experts.
A copy of the Memo No.F.4(1-1)/COE/TRBT/2020/425
dated 09/06/2025 is annexed and marked as Annexure
R/6.
The Petitioner had previously filed a Writ Petition
(WP(C) 359/2025) before the Hon'ble High Court of
Tripura on the same issue. The said petition was heard on
08/07/2025 and disposed of without commenting on the
merits. However, the Hon'ble High Court permitted the
Petitioner to submit a representation with necessary
materials within seven days, i.e., by 15/07/2025. TRBT
was directed to take a reasoned decision and
communicate it to the Petitioner within two weeks of
receiving the representation. In compliance with the
Hon'ble High Court's directions, TRBT constituted a three-
member Expert Committee. This committee thoroughly
reviewed the representation submitted by the Petitioner
and the accompanying materials. The Expert Committee
concluded that the correct answer to the disputed
question (Question No. 9 of Booklet Series A, Question
No. 18 in Booklet Series B, and Question No. 30 in
Booklet Series C) is 'D', which is "NONE OF THE ABOVE".
Page 7 of 10
On the basis of the Expert Committee's decision, TRBT
informed the Petitioner vide Memo No. F. 1(1-16)-
/TRBT/ESTT/2022/535 dated 28/07/2025.
A copy of the Order dated 08/07/2025 passed in
WP(C) 359/2025 is annexed and marked as Annexure
R/7.
A copy of the Memo No. F. 1(1-16)-
/TRBT/ESTT/2022/ 535 dated 28/07/2025 is annexed
and marked as Annexure R/8.
10. That the averments made by the Petitioner in Para
No. 15 of the Writ Petition are admitted to the extent that
the process described therein is a normal post-
examination procedure followed by TRBT.
11. That the averments made by the Petitioner in Para
Nos.16 to 24 of the Writ Petition are denied, save and
except as specifically admitted hereinafter. It is
submitted that TRBT works in cooperation with a team of
senior academicians who are nominated as the paper-
setters, moderators and subject experts. They set the
question papers, moderate them if necessary and the
subject-experts share their valuable opinion regarding
the correctness of the questions asked in the Test,
Tentative Answer Keys issued, objection raised or
feedback given against a question etc. On the basis of the
opinion given by the subject-experts, TRBT finalises the
Final Answer Keys. Evaluation of the response sheets of
the candidates is done on the basis of the Final Answer
Keys. Teachers' Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) has
been conducting Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) and other
recruitment Tests like STPGT, STGT etc successfully since
its inception in 2015. There is no question of being
arbitrary or partial on the part of TRBT.
The present petitioner is one of the candidates who could
not score the cut off marks and challenged the entire
system of /examination.
However, the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura while
hearing the Writ Petition (WP(C) 359/2025) filed by the
petitioner on the same issue on 08-07-2025 disposed it
of without commenting on the merit of it. However, the
Hon'ble High Court permitted the petitioner to submit a
representation with necessary materials if any within
seven days i.e. by 15/07/2025 to support his claims.
TRBT was asked to take a reasoned decision and
communicate it to the petitioner within two weeks of
receiving the representation.
Accordingly, TRBT formed a three-member Expert
Committee which went through the representation
submitted and the materials provided by the petitioners
in support of their claim and decided that the Answer to
the question that was challenged (i.e. Question NO. 9 of
Booklet Series A, Question NO. 18 in Booklet Series B and
Question no. 30 in Booklet Series C) is D, which is NONE
OF THE ABOVE. On the basis of the decision of the Expert
Committee, TRBT informed the Petitioner vide Memo No
F. 1(1-16)-/TRBT/ESTT/2022/535 Dated 28/07/2025.
In light of the foregoing, there is no illegality.
arbitrariness, or irrational action on the part of TRBT
against the Petitioner. The Respondent Board has
consistently responded to the issues raised by the
Petitioner in accordance with its standard operating
procedures and in compliance with the directions of the
Hon'ble High Court.”
Page 8 of 10
07. At the time of hearing Learned Addl. G.A.
appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted
that when the objections were invited to be filed by the
TRBT that time no step was taken by the present petitioner
challenging the answer of the alleged question for which this
case has been filed and furthermore in view of the judgment
relied upon by the State-respondents in the case delivered
by this Court in WP(C)No.699 of 2025, there is no scope to
grant any relief in favour of the petitioner and urged for
dismissal of this writ petition. It was further submitted by
Learned Addl. G.A. that the present petitioner could not
make out any case for granting relief in favour of the
petitioner and as such this writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
08. Heard both the sides at length. Admittedly the
present petitioner attempted and gave correct answer of the
question which was cited in the T-TET, Paper-I, examination
of 2022 by TRBT and similar question was again cited by
TRBT during the year 2024 T-TET Paper-I examination.
Against the year 2022 T-TET Paper-I final answer key was
released by TRBT wherein the answer which has been
attempted and given by the petitioner in this case was
given. There was no step on behalf of the TRBT that time to
say that that answer was incorrect and no notification in this
regard was issued. Based upon the said answer key
selections were made and candidates were selected. Now at
this stage where is the scope on the part of the TRBT that
the answer attempted against the aforesaid question during
Page 9 of 10
the year 2024 by the petitioner was incorrect because at
this stage there is no scope on their part to deviate from
their earlier statement made by them just simply referring
the judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India the
present respondents cannot take a different stand in this
case.
09. I have also perused the judgment delivered by
this Court in WP(C)No.699 of 2025. In paras No.9-13 this
Court observed as under:
“9. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the
writ petition and the connected documents annexed with
the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by
the State-respondents and the documents annexed with
that.
10. Admittedly, the petitioners in pursuance of the notice
dated 08.05.2025 did not submit any objection in respect
of question No.9 in booklet series A, question No.18 in
booklet series B, question No.30 in booklet series C.
Surprisingly, the respondents did not place on record how
the Expert Committee came to the observation that the
answer of the disputed question was incorrect but the
respondents only took the plea that the Expert Committee
took decision and the decision of the Expert Committee
was communicated to the petitioners [Annexure-H]. The
respondents only stated that the decision of the Expert
Committee cannot be challenged and regarding the
answer of the 2022 T-TET (Paper-I) on the same question
the stand of the respondent was that the same question
was not challenged by anyone earlier. This proposition of
the respondent Authority cannot be accepted. Even no
notice was published that the answer of the said question
was wrong during the year 2022. Since the respondents
in their counter affidavit failed to demonstrate as to how
the expert committee came to the observation, so, in
absence of any proper evidence on record, there was no
scope on the part of the respondents to take the plea that
the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.
11. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents have
failed to give any concrete answers/views as to how the
answer of the question as raised by the petitioners in this
writ petition is incorrect when the same answer was
treated as correct in the final answer key of 2022 T-TET
(Paper-I) examination. On the basis of final answer key
of 2022 T-TET (Paper-I), the petitioners, during the exam
of 2024 TTET (Paper-I) gave the same answer. Thus, it
appears that the respondents without any basis deleted
one marks from each of the petitioners.
12. The subject matter of citations as referred by Learned
G.A. at the time of hearing appears to be distinguishable
in facts as such those citations cannot be applied in this
case.
13. Consequently, this present writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are asked to give one additional mark to
Page 10 of 10
each of the petitioners in the result of T-TET 2024 (Paper-
I) within a period of two months from the date of passing
of this judgment and thereafter to declare their results
accordingly.”
10. After hearing both the sides it appears to this
Court that the present case is squarely covered by the said
judgment delivered by this Court on 21.08.2026 in
WP(C)No.699 of 2025. It appears that the action of the
respondents was arbitrary and not permissible in the eye of
law because by their action the respondents are estopped
from taking any further plea that the petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief in this writ petition because the
TRBT at this stage cannot take any different step deviating
from their earlier statement made in the final answer keys
(Annexure-8).
11. In the result, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondents are asked to
give one more additional mark to the present petitioner in
the result of T-TET, Paper-I, 2024 examination within a
period of two months, from the date of passing of this
judgment and thereafter to declare the result of the
petitioner afresh accordingly.
With this observation, this present writ petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
Date: 2026.09.25 17:34:32 +05'30'
MOUMITA DATTA
Moumita