AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
[2] By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have projected a common grievance. At the time of scrutiny, all the persons aspiring to appear in the Tripura Teachers' Eligibility Test Examination (T-TET Examination) were required to produce Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) with 'pass' mark-sheet and certificate, if any. In the event of failure, their candidature would be rejected and no communication would be entertained. Even though, the petitioners produced a print of the mark-sheet as downloaded from the web portal viz. www.dled.nios.ac.in with the derivative for the subject and the same was produced at the time of scrutiny.
[3] There is no dispute that all the petitioners have passed the D.El.Ed (for untrained in-service teachers) from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS in short). From the records, it further appears that the result was published on 22.05.2019. Since the petitioners did not produce the physical/digital mark-sheet during the time of scrutiny, their candidatures were rejected. The petitioners have urged this court to direct the respondents to scrutinize the mark-sheet/certificate and to allow them to place their online downloaded D.El.Ed pass certificate for purpose of allowing their candidature for appearing in the Tripura Teachers' Eligibility Test, 2018.
[4] The respondents, however, stiffly rejected the claim of the petitioners. They have stated that the Teachers' Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT in short) has laid down the eligibility criteria for appearing in the Teachers' Eligibility Test Examination in the year, 2018 in the second session as follows:
"Candidates who are appearing in the final year of Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) are provisionally allowed to appear in T-TET 2018: Second Session, Such candidates must have to produce Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed)/ Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) pass mark-sheet and certificate (if any) during certificate verification or else their candidature will be rejected and no communication will be entertained."
[5] In Para 13 of the reply filed by the respondents, it has been asserted that during this scrutiny, if it is found that required mark-sheet or certificate is not produced, the candidature shall stand rejected. In response, the petitioners have claimed that the Board issued the notification to the effect that the candidates must have passed the D.El.Ed before declaration of provisional result on 08.02.2019, is not the correct reflection of the instruction. Instructions are available in the prospectus form for the T-TET 2018 [Second Session].
[6] In term of the said instruction dated 06.06.2019, after four months, the declaration of the provisional result was available to the petitioners. They have asserted further that "The petitioners could not produce any mark-sheet having signature of the issuing authority either in physical or digital form." It evinces that there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to issue Teachers' Eligibility Test certificate to the candidates who did violate the conditions as mentioned in the prospectus by not submitting the physical mark-sheet of the D.El.Ed.
[7] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A has produced the records of the scrutiny. The report prepared in the scrutiny shows that no signed mark-sheet or digital mark-sheet was produced by the petitioners. Thus, the rejection cannot be questioned.
[8] Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel has in response submitted that the petitioners were declared successful in D.El.Ed by the NIOS, and they uploaded the result in their web portal. The final mark-sheet which is supposed to duly signed by the Director (Evaluation). The said final certificate has been enclosed by the petitioners as Annexure-A to the affidavit filed on 13.09.2019. The physical mark-sheet (Annexure-A to the affidavit) bears the date of publication of the result as 22.05.2019. The certificate is duly signed by the Director (Evaluation). There cannot be any amount of doubt in the mind of this court on two aspects; viz.
(1) The downloaded mark-sheet, print of which was submitted at the time of scrutiny was not digitally signed.
(2) On the day of scrutiny, the petitioners did not have the physical mark-sheet for D.El.Ed.
[9] Therefore, the sole question that hinges to the controversy is that whether the print of the online mark-sheet would suffice the purpose or not.
[10] The respondents are technically correct that the mark-sheet was neither digitally signed nor the copy of the mark-sheet, duly signed by the competent authority, was produced. Hence, they had no obligation to take cognizance of such mark-sheet. But the fact that appears is that on 22.05.2019, meaning before the date of scrutiny, the online mark-sheet was available on the said web portal of NIOS and one copy of that online mark-sheet was produced before the scrutiny committee. But that was not accepted.
[11] According to this court, this is a hyper-technical approach of TRBT, but this court cannot exercise its power to direct them to accept those mark-sheets. However, this court is of the view that TRBT shall take cognizance of the fact that on 22.05.2019 all the petitioners had passed the D.El.Ed from the NIOS and the online mark-sheet were uploaded in their website as narrated before. Subsequently, the print of the downloaded marksheet was produced before the TRBT for their consideration. In terms of this strict condition, they did not accept that print.
[12] Having noted thus, this court is of the further view that since the physical mark-sheet was not available to the petitioners, the online mark-sheet that was produced could have been verified by the TRBT from the web portal of the NIOS, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner cannot be held proper. However, the TRBT is directed to reconsider that aspect of the matter inasmuch as the TRBT cannot deny the online mark-sheet, inasmuch as it has its own integrity. On re-scrutiny of the petitioners' cases, the TRBT shall take appropriate decision having due regard to the observations made by this court. Such decision shall be taken within two weeks from the date when the petitioners shall produce a copy of this order along with a copy of the physical mark-sheet they have received afterwards.
To that extent, as indicated above, this writ petition stand allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Records as produced before this court by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. stands returned.