Bulti Paul vs The State of Tripura and 2 Others

TRHC010017762025
2026:THC:1208






HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

W.P.(C)No.612 of 2025

Bulti Paul
D/o: Ranjit Kr. Paul
W/o: Abhijit Sarkar
R/o: Jaynagar Road No:7, Near Homeo Hospital, Agartala,
Pin:799001.

……The Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Secretary,
Education Department, Govt of Tripura,
State Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex,
P.O: Kunjaban, Agartala, Tripura, Pin:799010.


2. The Secretary,
Education Department, Govt of Tripura.
State Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex,
P.O: Kunjaban, Agartala, Tripura, Pin: 799010.

3. The Director,
Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt of Tripura,
Shikshabhavan, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799001.

……The Respondent(s)



For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman Sr. Adv,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.


Date of Hearing : 21.08.2026

Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 31.08.2026

Whether fit for
Reporting : YES


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:

Page 2 of 11

“i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show
cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or Order or direction/directions shall not
be issued whereby directing the Respondents to
quash and cancel the memo, dated, 15.02.2020,
issued by the Director, Secondary Education,
whereby the Offer of appointment issued in
favour of the Petitioner on 14.11.2019 was
cancelled.
ii) Issue Rule upon the respondents to show
cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus
and/or Order or direction/directions shall not
be issued whereby directing the Respondents to
issue appointment letter in lieu of the
appointment letter, dated, 14.11.2019, issue by
the Director, Secondary Education, in favour of
the Petitioner for the post of Graduate Teacher
as she was recommended by the TRBT on the
basis of her performanceat STGT, 2019;
iii) Make the rules absolute.
iv)Call for records.
v) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble
High Court considered fit and proper.
AND
For this act of kindness, Petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray.”
02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted
by Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of
the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. D. Sarma
appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
03. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to UR category
and appeared for Selection Test for graduate Teacher, 2019
(STGT, 2019) conducted by the TRBT and accordingly, admit card
was issued by the Controller of Examination, TRBT, in favour of
the petitioner for Selection Test for Graduate Teacher (class IX to
X, Session June, 2019). The petitioner obtained B.A degree in
English from Madurai Kamaraj University through Distance
Education mode. Mark sheets and the certificates were issued to

Page 3 of 11

the effect that the petitioner was admitted in the B.A. English
course having been certified by duly appointed Examiners to be
nd
qualified to receive the degree and having been placed in the 2
Class at the examination held in April, 2010. The petitioner,
thereafter, obtained B.Ed degree in English from Madurai Kamaraj
University through Distance Education mode. Mark sheets and
Certificates were also issued to the effect that the petitioner was
admitted in the B.Ed course having been certified by duly
appointed Examiners to be qualified to receive the degree and
st
having been placed in the 1 Class at the Examination held in
April, 2012. The petitioner performed well in STGT, 2019
Examination and accordingly, the Director of Secondary
Education vide Memo, dated 04.11.2019 issued Offer of
Appointment in favour of the Petitioner to the post of Graduate
Teacher on recommendation of the TRBT vide No.F.2(1-
8)GEN/TRBT/REC/2019/165 dated 11.09.2019. By the said
memo, the petitioner was offered purely temporary post of GT on
fixed monthly pay of Rs.20,475/- only subject to terms and
conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment (Annexure-5).
The petitioner was asked to communicate her acceptance of offer
of appointment on or before 29.11.2019 with all required
documents. Accordingly, the petitioner accepted the offer of
appointment and submitted all the necessary documents
required. After that one, Sushanta Das, Director of Secondary
Education, laid one FIR on 13.02.2020 against the petitioner to
O/C, West Agartala P.S. (Annexure-6) and after closure of

Page 4 of 11

investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the petitioner
and thereafter, by a judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed in PRC
st
(WP) No.278 of 2022 Learned J.M. 1 Class, Court No.7, Agartala
acquitted the petitioner from the charges framed against her
under Section 468/471 of IPC. It was also submitted that in the
meantime, vide memo dated 15.02.2020 (Annexure-8) the
Director of Secondary Education cancelled the Offer of
appointment issued vide memo dated 04.11.2019. It was further
submitted that the respondents without any basis cancelled the
Offer of appointment issued to the petitioner and she has been
honorably acquitted by the Learned Trial Court. It was further
submitted that due to lodging of FIR she has lost valuable seven
years of her life and she was out of employment and was suffered
immense mental agony, social humiliation and financial hardships
due to prolong deprivation of her legitimate appointment. So, the
petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs as stated
above.
04. The State-respondents have contested the writ
petition by filing counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit in para
Nos.12 and 13 it has been stated by the State-respondents as
under:
“12. That, in regard to the statements made in
paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that,
on the strength of the fake certificate, the
petitioner sat for the Selection Test for Graduate
Teachers (STGT) and cleared the test. Teachers
Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT)
recommended the name of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher
and on finding that she submitted fake
certificate for appointment to the post of

Page 5 of 11

Graduate Teacher the Department lodged an FIR
at the West Agartala Police Station.
It is stated here that as per the verification
report of the Controller of Examination Madurai
Kamraj University vide Letter No. MKU/Con I &
II/ Genuine/2020 dated 08.01.2020 the mark-
sheets of B.A(English) and Bachelor of
Education (B. Ed.) obtained from the Madurai
Kamraj University, Madurai are not genuine and
it is clearly mentioned that "The Particulars
reflected in the Xerox Copies of the above
certificates sent by you are verified and found
not matched with our records."
13. That, in regard to the statements made in
paragraph 10 to 17 of the writ petition, it is
stated that, in the order dated 12.08.2025, the
Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Agartala, West
Tripura gave the observation in Paragraph No.
13: "In view of the findings arrived above, I hold
that the prosecution could not successfully
bring home the charges against the accused
person namely Smt. Bulti Paul u/Sec. 468/471
of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and
accordingly, the accused person is found not
guilty of offence punishable u/Sec. 468/471 of
IPC. She is therefore, acquitted of the liability of
the charges made against her. Accordingly, she
is set at liberty at forthwith."
It is also to be submitted here that in its
Judgment and Order of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate 1 Class, Agartala, West Tripura
passed on 12.08.2025 nowhere it is mentioned
that the mark-sheets of B.A(English) and
Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) obtained from the
Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai which were
submitted by Smt. Bulti Paul for appointment to
the post of Graduate Teacher are genuine nor
the report of the Controller of Examination of
Madurai Kamraj University communicated vide
Letter No. MKU/Con 1 & II/ Genuine/2020
dated 08.01.2020 is not genuine.
The Respondents submit that a person can be
convicted to a criminal trial when the case is
proved beyond doubt, but civil action are all
based on principle of pre-ponderance of
probability. The acquittal of the petitioner from
the charge of forgery did not automatically
negate the information given by Madurai Kamraj
University, Madurai that the certificate
furnished by the petitioner is mismatched with
records. It is therefore considered appropriate
to cancel the offer of appointment of the
petitioner because one cannot be appointed in a
government service on the basis of a fake
document whether it forged by the petitioner or
not.
If the genuineness of the mark sheets /
certificates B.A (English) and Bachelor of
Education (B. Ed.) obtained from the Madurai
Kamraj University, Madurai of the petitioner is
established beyond doubt, the State

Page 6 of 11

Respondents will have no counter-argument to
cancel the Memo dated 15.02.2020 (Annexure-
8 of writ petition) and issue posting order.
Otherwise, the petitioner has no right to claim
to consider her for appointment to the post of
Graduate Teacher and in that case, the State
respondents deny and dispute the claim of the
petitioner.”
The petitioner further submitted rejoinder and in para
3 to 7 it has been stated by the petitioner as under:
“3. That, the Controller of Examination, MK
University, Palkalai Nagar, Madurai, vide letter,
lated, 18.02.2020, after re-verification,
informed the Director, Directorate of Secondary
Education, Agartala, Tripura, that, mark sheet
and certificates of the students named in the
letter are genuine. In the said letter, name of
the Petitioner appears at Sl. No. 3. It appears
from the said letter, that, Petitioner has
completed B.A English & B.Ed course from the
Madurai Kamraj University and got 2nd Division
& 1" Division respectively. It further appears,
that, the Petitioner's Registration number
against the respective subject Course are
A8A4580077 & 11A4280296.
Copy of the letter, dated, 18.02.2020, is
annexed as Annexure-10.
4. That, the Additional Controller of
Examination, Madurai Kamraj University, issued
Genuineness Certificates, on 18.02.2020,
respectively, declaring, that, Smt. Bulti Paul has
passed the Degree of B.A in English Examination
and B.Ed. Examination from this University,
whose Registration No. is A8A4580077 &
11A4280296.
Copies of the Genuineness Certificates, dated,
18.02.2020 are annexed as Annexure-11 & 12.
5. That, it is further mentioned, herein, that, the
aforesaid certificates, in original have been
directly sent to the U.K. Chakma, Director, O/o
the Directorate of Secondary Education through
registry post with A.D on 18.02.2020, by one
Billal Ahmed, Head Clerk of the Madurai Kamraj
University, Madurai and in terms of General
Clause Act, it is presumed, that, the O/o the
Directorate of Secondary Education, received
the said certificates.
Copies of the Acknowledgements of Indian Post
Office are annexed as Annexure-13.
6. That, in respect to the contention of Para-9 of
the counter affidavit, the Petitioner submits
that, the Respondents very cleverly. suppressed
the post events of 11.10.2019 & 08.01.2020.
From the letter, dated, 18.02.2020 &
certificates, annexed with the instant rejoinder

Page 7 of 11

affidavit, that, the Controller of Examination,
Madurai Kamraj University, issued genuineness
certificate in respect to the Petitioner's
Educational & Professional certificates, dated,
18.02.2020. Had there been fair consideration
of the aforesaid certificates by the Respondents,
then it would have been easily found, that, the
Petitioner genuinely passed the B.A in English
Examination and B.Ed. Examination from
Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai.
7. That, in respect to Annexure-R/2, annexed
with the counter affidavit, it is submitted, that,
Premjit Das and Smt. Arpita Saha, who are
similarly situated person, like the Petitioner
herein, whose name have been reflected in the
letter, dated, 11.10.2019, who have been
passed B.Ed Exam from M.K.U, are presently
serving under the Govt. of Tripura, relying on
the said B.Ed Certificates. Only, in respect to the
Petitioner, the Respondents have caused
discriminatory treatment despite the fact, that,
the Petitioner's educational & profession
certificates issued by the MKU, are genuine.”
However, at the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for
the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that the
respondents-authority took arbitrary action against the petitioner
and referring Annexures-R/1 and R/2 as relied upon by the State-
respondents, it was submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that
before the Learned Trial Court no person from the said University
appeared to support the prosecution allegation and as such on
conclusion of trial the petitioner was honorably acquitted by the
Learned Trial Court. It was further submitted that in the rejoinder
it was stated by the petitioner that the authority of Madurai
Kamaraj University had sent communication to the Director of
School Education, Tripura on 18.02.2020 i.e. Annexure-10 and
also from Annexure-11 and Annexure-12 it is clear that the
petitioner obtained degree in B.A. English from the said
University, the examination which was held in the month of April,
2010 having registration Nos. A8A4580077 and also attained

Page 8 of 11

B.Ed degree in April 2013 having registration No.11A4280296
from the said University.
It was also submitted that in the criminal proceeding
also no authority from the said University appeared to
substantiate the prosecution allegation, so, simply on the
communication that the documents submitted by the petitioner
does not match with the records, the Director Higher Education
without any basis by memo dated 15.02.2020 cancelled the Offer
of appointment in favour of the petitioner which was arbitrary,
illegal and not binding upon the petitioner. Learned Senior
Counsel also submitted that challenging the rejoinder submitted
by the petitioner no further affidavit has been submitted by the
State-respondents. Thus, it appears that the respondents without
any basis cancelled the Offer of appointment issued in favour of
the petitioner. So, Learned Senior Counsel in summing up urged
for allowing this writ petition giving relief to the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
one Premjit Das and Arpita Saha who are also similarly situated
candidates like the present petitioner and whose names have
been reflected in the letter dated 11.10.2019 passed B.Ed exam
from the said University presently serving under Government of
Tripura relying on the said certificates. But the respondent-
Authority only in respect of the petitioner made discrimination
and deprived her from her valuable right by cancelling the Offer

Page 9 of 11

of appointment for which Learned Senior Counsel urged for
allowing this writ petition.
Learned Additional G.A., Mr. D. Sarma submitted that
there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and
st
the Learned J.M. 1 Class by the said judgment did not give any
observation that the certificates submitted by the petitioner was
genuine and as such on the strength of the judgment of the
st
Learned J.M., 1 Class, there is no scope to grant any relief in
favour of the petitioner.
06. Heard both the sides at length and perused the writ
petition and the documents annexed with the same as well as the
counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents. The respondent-
Authority on the basis of communication of Madurai University
came to the observation that the B.A. Degree as well as the B.Ed
Degree certificates procured by the petitioner was fake and as
such by memo dated 15.02.2020 cancelled the Offer of
appointment issued in favour of the present petitioner. By this
time a case was registered against the petitioner in the criminal
court and after trial, the petitioner was honorably acquitted by
the Learned Trial Court. In the criminal case charge under Section
468/471 of IPC was framed, so, after trial the Learned Trial Court
acquitted the petitioner from the charge of the criminal case,
although it was not a duty of the criminal Court to give any
observation regarding genuineness of the certificates submitted
by the petitioner. However, challenging that judgment no appeal

Page 10 of 11

has been preferred by the State-respondent. The judgment of the
criminal Court was passed on 16.03.2024, by this time the same
has attained finality. More interestingly, in this writ petition the
petitioner submitted rejoinder and relied upon Annexures-10, 11
and 12 but surprisingly, at the time of hearing Learned Addl. G.A.
representing the State-respondents totally remained silent about
those documents. Even no additional-affidavit was submitted on
behalf of the State-respondents against the rejoinder filed by the
petitioner. Thus, it appears that the respondents have/had no
proper defence to counter the submission made by Learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Since challenging the rejoinder,
no additional-affidavit is filed and challenging Annexures-10, 11
and 12 as relied upon by the petitioner nothing was submitted by
the respondents to counter the same, so, after hearing both the
sides it appears to this Court that there was no basis on the part
of the Director of Secondary Education to cancel the Offer of
appointment in favour of the petitioner by memo dated
15.02.2020 (Annexure-8) and as such in the considered opinion
of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to get relief in this writ
petition.
07. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby allowed. The memo dated 15.02.2020 issued by the
respondent is hereby cancelled and set aside. The respondents
are asked to issue fresh Offer of appointment in favour of the
petitioner within a period of three months from today. Since the
petitioner during the period did not perform her duties, so, no

Page 11 of 11

relief is granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of payment
of any back wages.
With this observation this writ petition stands disposed
of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE






PURNITA DEB
Purnita

Digitally signed by PURNITA DEB
Date: 2026.09.01 18:04:29 +05'30'