AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Anupam Pal appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also, heard Learned Senior G.A., Mr. Pradyumna Gautam appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for directing them, to transmit the records, relevant to the subject matter of this writ petition for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned decision of the TRBT as contained in the impugned Letter dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure-6 supra);
Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for mandating/directing the respondents, to treat the petitioner to have secured the minimum eligibility criteria of T-TET, Paper-1, in connection with the Notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1 supra), and thereafter, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Under-Graduate Teacher (for Classes I to V) under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Education (School) Department, Government of Tripura;
Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in terms of i. to ii. above;
Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;
AND
For this gracious act of kindness the humble petitioner abovenamed SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
It is the case of the petitioner that by a notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1), the TRBT invited online application for selection of the post of Under-Graduate Teacher (for Classes I-V) and Graduate Teacher (Classes VI-VIII). In the said selection process, there were 1099 posts of Under-Graduate Teacher (for Classes I-V) comprising UR-571, SC-187, ST-341, PH-44, ESM-22 and there were 467 numbers of posts of Graduate Teacher(for Classes VI-VIII) comprising of UR-243, SC-79, ST-145, PH-19, ESM-09. In addition to that, it was further provided that there would be 33% horizontal reservation in respect of the reserved category and 33% general reservation in the un-reserved category for women pursuant to GA(P&T) Department notification dated 28.06.2022. In the said notification, the essential minimum qualification for the Under-Graduate Teacher (for Classes I-V) was mentioned as under:
“1.Essential Minimum Qualifications:
a) Under-Graduate Teacher (for Classes I-V);
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (or 1 year Diploma in Education up to academic session 2004-05) (by whatever name known).
OR
•Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002 (or one year Diploma in Education up to academic session 2004-05)
OR
•Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.).
OR
•Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education).
OR
•Graduation and two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (or 1 year Diploma in Education up to academic session 2004-05) (by whatever name known)
(b)Passed Tripura-Teachers Eligibility Test (T-TET) Pape-I) and obtained certificate issued by TRBT
(c)Desirable Qualification: Knowledge of Bengali or Kokborok
(d)Permanent Resident Certificate of Tripura (PRTC) would be required while applying for jobs by direct recruitment under the State Government, Corporations, Boards, PSUs etc.
(e)Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to the SC/ST/PH category.”
Thereafter, it was submitted that the case of the petitioner comes under the second category wherein it was mentioned that Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002 (or one year Diploma in Education up to academic session 2004-05) and there was a relaxation of 5% in respect of SC/ST/PH category candidates in point (e).
It was further contended that the petitioner appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination held in the year 2001 in total 6(six) subjects namely Bengali, English, History, Political Science, Education and Geography but could not pass in English and Political Science. So, in the year 2002, she again appeared for supplementary examination for the paper English and Political Science and secured 61 and 73 marks respectively.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the selection test as she got the requisite qualification for selection to the post of Under-Graduate Teacher and she scored 84 marks as SC category but inspite of having the requisite marks, the TRBT did not recommend her name for appointment in the list of qualified candidates for T-TET 2024, Paper-I. It was further submitted that similar other persons belonging to SC category who also secured the same marks were recommended for selection and appointment.
After that, the petitioner sought information under RTI Act, in response to which it was informed that she could not secure minimum eligibility criteria of T-TET paper-I. So, under compelling circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel confined his argument on two aspects. Firstly, as per notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1), the petitioner as an SC candidate, was entitled to get relaxation of 5% from the requisite marks of essential minimum qualification. Secondly, in the Higher Secondary Examination, the petitioner secured 47.1% marks which was more than the requisite minimum marks but the TRBT with an ulterior motive rejected his candidature and as such, the petitioner has suffered from loss of opportunity. Thus, the petitioner requires to be appointed for the post she applied for as she has got the requisite qualification for selection. So, Learned Counsel urged before this Court for allowing this writ petition.
The State-respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. In para No.6, it has been asserted by the State-respondents as under:
“6.That, the averments made by the petitioner in para no.2.4 & 2.5 of this writ petition, the answering respondent submits that, it is true that Smt. Aparna Das scored 84 marks in T-TET Paper-I, Session 2024, and accordingly, she was called for the scrutiny of document.
But after the scrutiny of documents, it was revealed that she could not fulfil the eligibility criteria of securing at least 45% marks in Senior Secondary Examination as a SC category candidate.
On scrutiny of documents, it revealed that she scored less that 45% (i.e. She secured 41.6%)
It is not a fact that she scored 47.1% in her Senior Secondary examination. As per the mark-sheet (compartmental) issued vide No.010807/2002, she has passed both English and Political Science subjects with overall division „P‟, which denotes that she scored within 300 to 449, and after adding the marks of compartmental subjects, she scored grand total of 416, which is less than the minimum marks required for acquiring eligibility criteria (i.e. she secured 41.6%)”
At the time of hearing, Learned Senior G.A. submitted that since the petitioner could not fulfill the eligibility criteria of securing at least 45% marks in Senior Secondary Examination so the TRBT rightly rejected her candidature. Further, it was submitted that even in case of relaxation also, she was not eligible for recommendation and also for appointment to the post of Under-Graduate Teacher against the said advertisement/notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1) and urged for dismissal of this writ petition.
I have heard both the sides at length and perused the writ petition and the connected documents.
There is no dispute on record that the present petitioner against advertisement dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1) applied for the post of Under-Graduate Teacher and as an SC candidate she scored 84 marks but the TRBT did not recommend her name on the ground that she could not secure the eligibility marks of 45% in the Senior Secondary Level Examination.
To substantiate the contention as already stated, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that first of all in the said notification the petitioner as an SC candidate was entitled for 5% relaxation and Learned Counsel made another alternative submission that in the Senior Secondary Examination although he appeared in 6(six) subjects but if the best 5(five) subjects would be adopted for calculation then the total marks of the petitioner in the Higher Secondary Examination will be 471 i.e. 47.1%.
On the other hand, Learned Senior G.A. appearing for the State-respondents submitted that 5% relaxation would not be considered at this stage as submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, it appears that after calculating the marks of the Higher Secondary Examination obtained by the petitioner in both the mark-sheets, she has secured less than 45%. So, as per the criteria of the said notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1), the TRBT rightly rejected his candidature.
In this regard, after careful consideration of submission of Learned Counsel of both the sides, it appears to this Court that both the parties in this case could not clarify the entire matter for adjudication by this Court.
Firstly, as submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that 5% relaxation in the marks of Higher Secondary Examination would be taken into consideration for SC/ST candidate is not correct because in the said notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1), the TRBT has prescribed some criteria for online application and in the said criteria, it has been specifically mentioned that relaxation up to 5% will be taken into consideration in the qualifying marks shall be given/allowed to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/PH category. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said criteria would be taken into consideration at the time of final selection of candidates for counting of total marks of the eligible candidates.
Secondly, as submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that out of 6 subjects excepting the languages best marks obtained in 3(three) subjects out of 4(four) subjects would be taken into consideration is also not correct because in this regard the petitioner at the time of hearing could not place any regulation of the respective authority to substantiate his contention.
Now, here in this case if we count the total marks obtained by the petitioner in the Higher Secondary Examination, 2001 along with the marks obtained in supplementary examination in 2002, it appears that he has secured 416 marks which is equivalent to 41.6% and the required marks was 45% as notified by the TRBT in the said notification dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-1). Thus, it appears that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuing any mandamus and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this petition.
In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner bears no merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
With this observation, this petition stands disposed of.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.