State Must Determine Equivalence of B.Ed (Special) and B.Ed (Regular) Degrees Through Designated Equivalence Committee

The eight petitioners applied for the posts of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher pursuant to advertisements issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) in 2016 and 2017

Although they qualified in the written examinations, their candidatures were initially stalled because they possessed B.Ed. (Special) degrees rather than the B.Ed. (Regular) degrees prescribed in the eligibility criteria

Following interim court orders, the petitioners were appointed and served for approximately six to seven years

However, a Division Bench of the High Court in 2018 subsequently dismissed their claims, holding that B.Ed. (Special) was not an equivalent eligibility criterion under NCTE norms for the advertised posts

In a subsequent Review Petition (No. 23/2019), the Court granted the petitioners liberty to submit representations to the State for a decision on degree equivalence

Despite the formation of an Equivalence Committee by the State on 11.07.2018 and repeated representations by the petitioners, no decision was rendered

On 27.08.2025, the State issued termination orders but withdrew them the same day, pending the outcome of this writ petition

The court considered the eligibility norms prescribed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations

It referenced Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, where the Delhi High Court directed the grant of equivalence to B.Ed. (Special Education) with B.Ed. (General) for certain appointments

The court also relied on the "model employer" doctrine established in Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, which prohibits the arbitrary termination of long-serving employees and emphasizes that departures from long-standing practices must be supported by reasoned, speaking orders

Additionally, the court noted the role of the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) Act, 1992, in prescribing qualifications for special educators

The Court observed that while the Division Bench had previously ruled against the petitioners based on strict NCTE criteria, the subsequent order in Review Petition No. 23/2019 explicitly directed the State to consider the petitioners' representations regarding equivalence

The Court found it "surprising" and "arbitrary" that the State had allowed the petitioners to continue in service for over six years while simultaneously failing to activate the Equivalence Committee (constituted in 2018) to resolve the dispute

The Court highlighted the inconsistency of the respondent-authority, specifically the issuance and immediate withdrawal of termination memos on the same day (27.08.2025), which demonstrated a lack of reasoned decision-making

The Court reasoned that since an Equivalence Committee already exists to determine such academic parity, the State cannot perpetually leave the petitioners' status in limbo after years of service

The Court directed the respondents to mandate the Equivalence Committee to take a "conscious decision" on the petitioners' representations in light of the directions passed in Review Petition No. 23/2019

This decision must be rendered within three months from the date of the judgment

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly