Sri Priyatosh Das vs The State of Tripura and 4 others
- Court
- Tripura High Court
Page 1 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No. 28 of 2026
Sri Priyatosh Das,
S/O: Lt. Matilal Das,
R/O Vill + P.O: Jowali Khamar,
P.S: R.K Pur, Dist: Gomati, Pin: 799013,
aged about: 37 years.
…… .....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by its Special Secretary,
School Education Department, Govt. of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, P.O: Secretariat,
P.S: New Capital Complex, Dist: West Tripura,
PIN: 799010.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
Directorate of Elementary Education,
Govt. of Tripura, Siksha Bhavan, Office Lane,
P.O: Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.
3. The Teachers Recruitment Board,
Tripura (TRBT), Represented by its
Member Secretary, Siksha Bhawan,
Office Lane, P.O: Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.
4. The Member Secretary,
Teacher's Recruitment Board,
Tripura (TRBT), Siksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, P.O-Agartala, P.S-West Agartala,
Dist.-West Tripura, PIN-799001.
5. The Controller of Examinations,
Teacher's Recruitment Board,
Tripura (TRBT), Siksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, P.O: Agartala, P.S: West Agartala,
Dist: West Tripura, PIN: 799001.
...........Respondents
Page 2 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Arijit Bhaumik,
Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. GA.
Date of hearing :27.07.2026
Date of Delivery of judgment :07.09.2026
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
JUDGMENT &ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs:-
“ i. Issue Notice upon the Respondents,
ii. Call for the relevant records,
iii. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents
to show cause as to why Teachers Eligibility Test
(TET) Certificate shall not be issued in favour of the
Petitioner having successfully passed T-TET 2024
Examination as per guidelines issued by National
Council for Teacher Education dated 11th February,
2011.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents
to show cause as to why Note d of Clause 1(B) of the
Prospectus cum instructions of T-TET-2024 dated Nil
issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura
whereby it has been provided that candidates
appearing in T-TET 2024 Examination who are
pursuing Bachelor Degree In Education
(B.Ed)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) will
have to produce their final pass mark-sheet during
scrutiny of mark-sheets/certificates/documents, etc
or else their candidature will be cancelled shall not be
set aside and quashed by this Hon'ble Court.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon Respondents to
show cause as to why the stipulation in the notice
Page 3 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
dated 26.06.2025 whereby it has been provided that
candidates appearing in T-TET 2024: Paper I and
Paper-II as 'appearing candidates' will have to
produce the final year pass mark sheet of B.Ed/
D.El.Ed during scrutiny of mark-sheets/certificates,
etc failing which their candidature will be cancelled
shall not be set aside and quashed by this Hon'ble
Court.
AND
Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to
show cause as to why the List of Qualified Candidates
for TET Certificate issued by TRBT dated 13.12.2025
shall not interfered with so far as it does not include
the name of the Petitioner.
iv. And after hearing the parties, be pleased
to make the rule absolute.
AND/OR
Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit
and proper.
AND
For this act of kindness your humble
Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever remain
grateful.”
2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Learned Add. GA Mr. Karnajit De, appearing
on behalf of the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed his
Madhyamik Examination from the Tripura Board of Secondary Education
in the year 2006 and thereafter completed his H.S.(+2) Examination in
the year 2008. Subsequently, the Petitioner enrolled himself in the
D.El.Ed. program for the academic session 2023-2025 under the West
Bengal Board of Primary Education. By this time, the petitioner has
already successfully completed Part-1 and Part-II examination of the
Page 4 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
D.El.Ed Course in the month of August, 2024 and August, 2025. The
petitioner is waiting for the final result of the Part II Examination of the
D.El.Ed Course.
4. According to the petitioner, the National Council for Teacher
Education has issued guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 for
conducting Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) under Right Of Children To
Free And Compulsory Education Act (RTE), 2009. As per Clause 5 of the
said guidelines, the eligibility for appearing in Teachers Eligibility Test.
Clause 5 (i) provide that a person who has acquired the academic and
professional qualifications (Teacher Education Courses) can appear for
TET examination. Clause 5(ii) further provides that persons who are
pursuing any of the Teacher Education courses (professional course)
recognized by NCTE or RCI as specified in the Notification dated 23rd
August, 2010 are also eligible to appear in the Teachers Eligibility Test.
5. Learned Counsel further submitted that, clause 9 of the said
guidelines provides that a person who scores 60% or more in the TET
Exam will be considered as TET Pass and clause 14 provides that the
appropriate Government conducting Teacher's Eligibility Test shall
award TET Certificate to all successful candidates.
6. The Respondent No. 3 issued Prospectus Cum Instructions
for T-TET 2024: Paper-1 and Paper-II. As per the said Prospectus Cum
Instructions submission of online application commenced from
24.01.2025 and the same was allowed up to 28.02.2025. The Petitioner
applied against the said Prospectus Cum Instructions for Teachers
Page 5 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
Eligibility Test and the Petitioner was called upon to appear for Paper-I
of Teachers Eligibility Test on 04.05.2025. Accordingly the Petitioner
appeared for the test on those dates.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 88 marks in the T-
TET examination. It is further submitted that Clause 1(B) of the
Prospectus-cum-Instructions for T-TET 2024 provided that candidates
who are appearing in the final year of the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed)/
Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) or any prescribed course in
elementary education were provisionally permitted to appear in the T-
TET 2024 examination. Such candidates were required to produce their
B.Ed/D.El.Ed pass certificate at time of scrutiny of their mark
sheets/certificates/documents and other relevant documents, failing
which their candidature would be cancelled without any further notice,
and no appeal in that regard would be entertained.
8. It was further submitted that, having successfully qualified in
the Teacher’s Eligibility Test (TET), the petitioner approached the
respondent authority for issuance of the TET certificate. However, the
respondent authority failed to issue the TET certificate to the petitioner,
in violation of the applicable rules and the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
9. It was further submitted that this Hon’ble Court, vide its
judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 passed in WP(C) No.379/2025,
granted time to the petitioner therein to submit the final mark sheet of
D.El.Ed course and directed the respondents to consider the
Page 6 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
candidature of the said petitioner upon submission of the final mark
sheet.
10. It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, in the judgment titled as State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v.
Arbind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. reported reported in (2015) 1 SCC
347 , held that the normal rule is that when a particular set of persons
is granted relief by the Court, all other persons similarly situated ought
to be treated alike by extending the same benefit to them. Failure to do
so would amount to discrimination.
11. It was further submitted that the respondent No.3 did not
reject the candidature of the petitioner, rather, the petitioner was
directed to submit an affidavit regarding the erroneous recording of his
father’s name in the caste certificate. The said requirement was duly
recorded in writing by the Scrutiny Committee on the application
acknowledgment issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner duly
submitted the requisite affidavit regarding the erroneous recording of
his father’s name in the caste certificate. However, no communication
was thereafter issued by the TRBT rejecting or cancelling the
candidature of the petitioner.
12. On 13.12.2025, the TRBT published the final list of
candidates qualified for the award of the TET certificate, from which the
petitioner came to know that his candidature had not been accepted.
Thereafter, the petitioner caused an advocate’s Notice but to be served
upon the respondents pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner was
Page 7 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ
petition.
13. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the communication dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure-8) issued
by the Under Secretary, NCTE, to the Deputy Director of Education,
Government of NCTE, New Delhi, Directorate of Education, wherein it
was stated that, on a fair reading of Clause 5(ii) of NCTE guidelines, a
person who has been admitted to a TTC course and is pursuing the
same is eligible to appear in the TET examination, provided that such
person is otherwise eligible in terms of the extent guidelines for TET
circulated on 11.02.2011, as amended from time to time, and the
notifications issued by the NCTE regarding the minimum qualifications,
as amended from time to time.
14. The petitioner also relied upon the notification dated
11.02.2011 issued by the NCTE containing the guidelines in respect of
the TET examination. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner further relied upon the judgment dated 10.07.2026 passed by
this High Court in WP(C) No. 23 of 2026 and submitted that the case of
the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment as well as by
the judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP(C)
No. 379 of 2025.
15. The State-respondents have contested the case by filing
counter affidavit. In para Nos .3-11 of the counter affidavit, the State-
respondents have made the following assertions:-
Page 8 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
“3. That, earlier some similarly situated
candidate approached this court and filed a Writ
Petition bearing No. WP(C) 379 of 2025. The writ
petition was disposed of by a Judgment dated
12.12.2025. Against that Judgment, the erstwhile
petitioners preferred an intra-court appeal bearing No.
WA No. 06 of 2026. The Hon'ble Division in its
judgment clearly held that the original writ petition is
not maintainable. That is the Writ Petitioner bearing
No. WP(C) 379 of 2025 is not maintainable.
The relevant paragraph of the said
judgment passed in Writ Appeal No. 06 of 2026 is as
follows:-
“6. This court has meticulously gone
through the records from where it is
evident that the original writ petition is not
maintainable on the point that there was
no impugned order and the writ petition
has been filed challenging the clauses in
the Prospectus. The Prospectus is nothing
else but a publicity material and the same
is not a Notification. However, considering
the fact that the original writ petitioners
are anticipating for a bright future, thus,
keeping their career in mind, this court is
not interfering with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. So far as, the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the
appellants to modify the order passed by
the learned Single Judge cannot be
accepted. It is seen from the record that
there is no impugned order but, there is
action which can be taken into
consideration where the representations
made by the original writ petitioners dated
20.06.2025 and 26.06.2025 (Annexures 50
and 51 to the writ petition), according to
the petitioners stood undecided, and they
were not aware of the reasons for which
their candidatures were not considered by
the respondents. As there is no impugned
order, the petitioners assailed the clauses
of the Prospectus only under apprehension
and approached this Court under 226 of
Page 5 of 5 the Constitution of India, and
thus, the same cannot be invoked on
speculative grounds. The ground of
apprehension is found not to be genuine
from the materials placed on record before
Page 9 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
this Court since there is no impugned
order, hence, the writ petition itself is not
maintainable. Moreover, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellants in
Omkar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and ors., reported in (2021) 14
SCC 486, wherein the notification issued by
the respondent was under challenge and
the same came to be examined but, in the
instant case there is no such notification
issued by the respondents and the
Prospectus merely cannot be treated as a
Notification since Prospectus is only an
advertising material."
Copy of the Judgment passed in Writ
Appeal No. 06 of 2026 is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure R/1.
4. That, in view of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Division Bench in WA No. 06 of 2026, the
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable
and is liable to be dismissed in limini.
6. That, in the Judgment of the WA No. 06 of
2026 mentioned above the Hon'ble High Court took
the challenge made against the prospectus and held
that the prospectus is not a notification but a publicity
material used for the purpose of advertisement.
7. That, with regard to para-1 to 5, I say
that, the answering respondent submits that these are
matter of records pertaining to the locus standi,
territorial limits and 'cause of action' and are to be
decided by the Hon'ble Court.
8. That, with regard to para-6 to 13, I say
that, the Petitioner accepted the terms and conditions
set by TRBT for T-TET 2024: Paper I before the
publication of result of the said Test. As it was clearly
mentioned in the Prospectus cum Instructions of T-
TET 2024. The conditions enumerated in the
prospectus is as follows:-
(a) "Candidate should read the Prospectus-
cum-Instructions, T-TET 2024 and other notifications
carefully and satisfy herself/himself that she/he
fulfils the criteria.
Page 10 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
(b) "In case, if it is found later on that candidate
does not fulfill any criterion, her/his candidature will
be treated as cancelled at any stage and no appeal
against such cancellation will be entertained.
(c) "There is no provision of pre-test scrutiny
of mark-sheets/certificates/documents, as such
candidate is required to apply online in her/his own
capacity on being satisfied the terms and conditions of
eligibilities for T-TET 2024. Candidate's admission in
the test will be purely provisional. "The results
published on the official website of TRBT are
provisional and for immediate information to the
candidates. These cannot be treated as final, since
finalization depends on correctness of facts and figure
uploaded and other eligibility conditions." (Page 1:
Prospectus cum Instructions, T-TET 2024)
And
(d) "Candidates who are appearing in the final
year of Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed) Diploma
in Elementary Education (D. El. Ed) etc. are
provisionally allowed to appear in the T-TET 2024.
Such candidates must have to produce Bachelor
Degree in Education (B.Ed) Diploma in Elementary
Education (D.El.Ed) etc. pass mark-sheet during
scrutiny of mark-sheets/certificates/documents or
else their candidature will be cancelled without
further notification and no appeal to this end will be
considered". (Page 3: Prospectus cum Instructions, T-
TET 2024.
Thus, the Petitioner while appearing in the
Test accepted the terms & conditions laid down in the
Prospectus cum Instructions of T-TET 2024 and now
the same persons are taking altogether different
standpoint which is self-contradictory.
Copy of the terms and conditions of the
prospectus is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure R/2.
9. That, with regard to para-14 to 15, I say
that, TRBT published the Prospectus Cum Instructions
of T-TET 2024 containing the terms and conditions of
the Test. The petitioner accepted these terms and
conditions and appeared in the Test with the
knowledge that if he could not produce the academic
and professional qualifications essential for T-TET
2024, Paper I then he would not be awarded TET
Page 11 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
Certificate. Before the publication of the final result of
the Test, the Petitioner accepted the terms &
conditions. But after securing pass mark, he
challenged the same terms & conditions as per his
own convenience.
10. That, with regard to para-16 to 20, I say
that, the answering respondent submits that TRBT
conducts Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) under NCTE
Guidelines dated 11th February, 2011 and it is also an
agency for recruiting teachers as per the NCTE
Guidelines dated 23rd August, 2010 and 29th July,
2011and the others published by NCTE time to time.
The candidates who have not completed their
professional qualifications i.e. D.El.Ed or B.Ed. during
the time of scrutiny of Mark sheets, Certificates etc.
are not considered to be given TET certificates.
Because, this candidates has not qualified any
professional degree on teaching as on date specified
by TRBT which is essential qualification to be a
teacher as per the NCTE norms. Therefore, TRBT as a
teachers' recruiting agency, considers those
candidates as the "successful candidates" for being
awarded the TET certificates who have successfully
acquired the minimum essential academic as well as
the professional qualifications to become a teacher
other than securing 60% or more marks in the TET
examination as per the guidelines of the Right to
Education Act-2009 and the other Notifications of
NCTE as referred above.
Moreover, TRBT has a reputation of
conducting TET Examinations and recruiting teachers
in Tripura by conducting various selection tests with
impartiality, efficiency, competence and by following
the basic laws and guidelines since 2015. TRBT has
never issued TET certificate to any candidate who
does not have the basic minimum academic as well as
professional qualifications to be a teacher since 2015.
Copy of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11th
February, 2011 is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure R/3.
Copy of the NCTE Guide lines dated 23rd
August, 2010 is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure R/4.
Copy of the guidelines of the Right to
Education Act-2009 is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure R/5.
Page 12 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
11. That, with regard to para-21 to 23, I say
that, the Writ Petition No. 379 of 2025 was filed by a
few candidates of the T-TET 2024 in the Hon'ble High
Court of Tripura. The Hon'ble Court heard it on
08/12/2025 and delivered judgment on 12/12/2025.
In the said judgment it was held as follows:
"...knowing fully the terms and conditions
issued by the authority they [the petitioners of WP(C)
379] appeared in the examination. So, legally they are
stopped raising this point at this belated stage." And
therefore, the Hon'ble Court quashed opines that "the
petitioners have failed to make out any case in their
favour to quash the Clause-1 (d) of the Prospectus"
Similarly, the present petitioner also
'knowing fully the terms & conditions' of the Test
appeared in it and now raising objection against the
terms and conditions which he accepted previously
ARA before the publication of result of the same.”
16. However, at the time of hearing, Learned Addl. GA drawn
the attention of this Court that the judgment passed by this Hon’ble
High Court in WP(C) No. 379 of 2025 was challenged in appeal before
the Division Bench of this High Court in WA No. 06 of 2026. The Hon’ble
Division Bench, vide its judgment, set aside the judgment under appeal
and directed the State respondents to consider the representation of
the petitioner therein within the stipulated period as prescribed by this
Court.
17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
present case is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 10.07.2026
in WP(C) No. 23 of 2026.
Page 13 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
As the subject matter of the present writ petition and that
of WP(C) No. 23 of 2026 are completely different, it is, therefore, urged
that the present case be disposed of in accordance with law.
18. Heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides and perused
the writ petition, the documents annexed thereto, as well as the
counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents.
19. It is an admitted position that, at the time of TET
examination, the petitioner was pursuing D.El.Ed course. In the
meantime, the petitioner has successfully completed the said course
and obtained the D.El.Ed. qualification from the concerned institution.
However, despite having secured the requisite 88 marks in the TET
examination, the respondent authority did not issue the T-TET
certificate to the petitioner.
20. With regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Omkar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
reported in (2021) 14 SCC 486 , as well as the NCTE guidelines dated
11.02.2011, Learned Counsel appearing for the State-respondents
could not place any materials before this Court to establish that a
candidate who was pursuing the prescribed teacher-training course
provisionally was ineligible either to appear in the TET examination or
to be issued a T-TET certificate upon subsequently acquiring the
requisite qualification.
21. Rather, the plea of the respondents is that, since the
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has set aside the judgment passed
Page 14 of 14
TRHC010000212026
2026:THC:1232
by the learned Court in WP(C) No. 379 of 2025, the petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief. However, upon hearing learned Counsel for
both sides and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds
that the Respondent Authority has acted in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India by refusing to issue the T-TET Certificate in favour
of the Petitioner, who is otherwise entitled to the same.
22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present
Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is hereby allowed.
23. Consequently, the Respondent-TRBT Authority is directed to
issue the T-TET Certificate in favour of the Petitioner within a period of
three (3) months from the date of passing of this judgment, after
affording the Petitioner an opportunity to produce the final mark sheet
of the D.El.Ed. Course, provided that the Petitioner fulfills all the
prescribed criterias.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
writ petition is stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA
Satabdi
Digitally signed by SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2026.09.08 16:58:31 +05'30'