Recruitment authorities are estopped from contradicting a previously accepted final answer key.

The petitioner appeared in the T-TET 2024 Paper-I examination conducted by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT), and secured 89 marks against the qualifying threshold of 90 marks.

Question No. 9 asked the meaning of the “Anarchic theory of intelligence,” with “Group factor theory” as one of the options. The petitioner selected “Group factor theory,” but TRBT treated the correct answer as “None of the above,” thereby denying him one mark.

The petitioner relied on the final answer key of T-TET 2022, in which TRBT had treated “Group factor theory” as the correct answer to a substantially identical question.

Although the petitioner did not challenge the tentative answer key within the prescribed period, he subsequently submitted a representation pursuant to an earlier order in WP(C) No. 359 of 2025.

A three-member Expert Committee reaffirmed “None of the above” as the correct answer, and TRBT communicated that decision to him on 28.07.2025.

1. Whether TRBT could treat “None of the above” as the correct answer in T-TET 2024 when it had treated “Group factor theory” as the correct answer to a substantially identical question in the final answer key of T-TET 2022.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to one additional mark and consequential declaration of his result as qualified, despite not having challenged the tentative answer key within the prescribed time.

3. Whether TRBT’s decision dated 28.07.2025 was arbitrary and legally unsustainable for failing to substantiate the Expert Committee’s conclusion.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative authority cannot arbitrarily depart from its own prior representation or position where candidates have relied upon it; such inconsistent conduct may attract the principle of estoppel.

It also applied the principle of judicial review against arbitrary administrative action, particularly where an examination authority fails to disclose a rational and demonstrable basis for changing an answer previously accepted as correct.

The Court relied substantially on its earlier decision in WP(C) No. 699 of 2025, which held that, absent a concrete explanation or supporting material from the Expert Committee, TRBT could not reject an answer accepted in the 2022 T-TET final answer key and delete marks in the 2024 examination.

The Court accepted that TRBT had finalised “Group factor theory” as the correct answer to the substantially identical question in T-TET 2022 and had not subsequently issued any correction or clarification.

Although TRBT relied on the 2024 Expert Committee’s opinion and the petitioner’s failure to object to the tentative answer key, the Court found that the respondents had not placed sufficient material showing how the Committee arrived at the conclusion that “None of the above” was correct.

Following its reasoning in WP(C) No. 699 of 2025, the Court held that TRBT could not adopt a contrary position without adequate justification after having previously represented the petitioner’s chosen answer as correct.

The departure was therefore treated as arbitrary, and the petitioner was entitled to the disputed mark.

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to one additional mark in T-TET 2024 Paper-I and directed the respondents to revise his result and declare it afresh within two months from 24.09.2026.

The impugned decision dated 28.07.2025 was consequently rendered ineffective to the extent that it denied the petitioner the additional mark.

The pending application, if any, was also disposed of.