Smt. Sharmishta Deb vs The State Of Tripura

“6.

That, in reply to the contents of paragraphs-8 to 20 of the writ petition, it is humbly stated that the Prospectus cum Instruction of T-TET 2024 TRBT issued all the guidelines with respect to conducting of T-TET 2024. After the test i.e. T-TET 2024, Paper-I was conducted on 04/05/2025 and the Tentative Answer Keys of the test was published on 08/05/2025 vide Memo No. No F.4 (1-1) /COE/TRBT/2020, dated 08/05/2025. In the event of having any 10 objection/claim etc. against any answer/question candidates were asked to submit their challenge (claim/objection). As per the Notice dated 08/05/2025, all the candidates of T-TET 2024, Paper I were asked to submit their objection/claim till 14.05.2025 (up to 4:00 P.M.) which was extended till 16/05/2025 (up to 4:00 P.M.)Vide Memo No. No F.4(1-11)/COE/TRBT/ 2020/318 dated 13/05/2025.

Copy of the Prospectus cum Instruction of T-TET 2024 TRBT is enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-A. Copies of Memo vide No F.4 (1-1) /COE/TRBT/2020/ dated 08/05/2025 and Notice dated 08/05/2025 are enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-В.

Copy of Memo No.No F.4 (1-11)/COE/TRBT/2020/318 dated 13/05/2025 is enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-C.

None of the Petitioners have challenged the Question (Questions NO. 9 of Booklet Series A, Question NO. 18 in Booklet Series B and Question no. 30 in Booklet Series C) which is as follows:-"Anarchic Theory of Intelligence is known as....." The details of the Registration No and Roll No of the candidates who challenged the said question and the Registration No and Roll No of the Petitioners of this Writ Petition bearing No. WP(C) 699/2025 is annexed herewith and it will transpire that the names of petitioners are not present in the list of candidates who challenged it.

A The Candidates Challenges Question No.9 of Booklet Series A

Sl No.	Name	Registration No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1	Roll No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1
1	Amit Debnath	250207164613	13206112401186
2	Kajal Sarkar	250129158267	13207212401690
3	Dipankar Das	250207164287	13832212408575
4	Jutan Shil	250205162327	13512112404829
5	Sumit Pal	221115135386	13624112406244
6	Arpita Debnath	250129158243	13206112401461

A The Candidates Challenges Question No.18 of Booklet Series B

Sl No.	Name	Registration No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1	Roll No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1
1	Jasim Miah	250201159937	13512112404728
2	Sanjoy Jamatia	210328123690	13205312400858
3	Akash Das	190511016332	13510212404385
4	Auman Ali	250131159574	13705112406786
5	Asin Aktar	250218173726	13206112401283
6	Sangita Debnath	210315116593	13806112407257
7	Bikram Das	190530046273	13816212407890
8	Mithu Debnath	190527040695	13816112407842

A The Candidates Challenges Question No.30 of Booklet Series C

Sl No.	Name	Registration No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1	Roll No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1
1	Rana Das	230627150998	13875212400573
2	Sutapa Bhattacharjee	250213169771	13828112408272
3	Animesh Das	221023134540	13706212407021
4	Dipu Chakma	221118139781	13205312401011

List of the Petitioners and Their Roll No and Registration No in T-TET 2024, Paper-1

Sl No.	Name	Registration No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1	Roll No. in T-TET 2024, Paper-1
1	Sharmistha Deb	250206162783	13314112402939
2	Mohan Mia	221118140304	13512112404596
3	Debadita Banik	250127157271	13832112408497
4	Subhrajit Ghosh	221115135409	13875112400523
5	Akash Debnath	210315116468	13623112405814
6	Ankita Das	250129158329	13313222402571
7	Ranjit Biswas	250124154928	13506212404015
8	Shibani Das	250207164242	13207212401643
9	Sabuj Das	221119142183	13806212407328

Copy of details of the Registration No and Roll No of the candidates who challenged the said question are enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-D.

Copies of Registration No and Roll No of the Petitioners are enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-E The Petitioners have to submit their claim/objection following the guidelines as set by the Prospectus Cum Instructions at Clause-21, which they did not and clause-21 is reflected as follows:-

"After the commencement of the tests, tentative answer keys will be displayed on the official website of TRBT. The candidates were instructed to go through the same and in case they have any doubt with respect to any tentative answer key, they can submit their challenges online along with payment of requisite challenge fees."

Thus, the Petitioners did not avail the system of challenging the question as per the guidelines and also within the time frame so set for it.

However, the challenges (claim/objections) submitted by the other candidates (annexed as ANNEXURE-D) were placed before the subject experts for further examination. Depending on the opinion of the subject experts, TRBT prepared the Final Answer Keys and published it. The Final Answer Keys of T-TET 2024, Paper I were published on 09/06/2025 vide Memo No. No F.4 (1-1) /COE/TRBT/ 2020/425 Dated 09/06/2025. Result was prepared and published on the basis of Final Answer Keys. As such TRBT has addressed each and every challenge/claim/objections as submitted by the candidates on the basis of the opinion given by the respective subjective experts. The correct answers to the questions (Question NO. 9 of Booklet Series A, Question NO. 18 in Booklet Series B and Question no. 30 in Booklet Series C) were also decided by the respective subject expert.

Copy of Memo No.No F.4 (1-1)/COE/TRBT/2020/425 Dated 09/06/2025 is enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-F The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition bearing No.(WP(C) 398/2025) on the same issue before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura and was passed on 22-07-2025, which states as follows:-

"[7] Taking note of the submissions of both sides and without giving any opinion or views on the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 to take up the matter of the representation of the petitioners with the Teachers' Recruitment Board, Tripura i.e. respondent no.2 to get the matter examined by expert body constituted by them (TRBT) and to take a reasoned decision on such representation. The petitioners shall furnish copy of their said representation to respondent no.3 along with further materials, if any, to support their claim, within 7(seven) days from today who will refer the matter accordingly to respondent no.2. The decision so taken by the respondents on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioners through petitioner no.1 within 2(two) weeks of receipt of such copy of representation and additional materials, if any, by respondent no.3 from the petitioners.

With such observations and direction, writ petition is disposed of.

Needless to say, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, if further grievance persists against the decision on their representation". Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble High Court permitted the petitioners to submit additional materials within seven days i.e. by 29/07/2025 to support their claims. TRBT was asked to take a reasoned decision and communicate it to the petitioner no 1 within two weeks of receiving the representation.

Copy of verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura is enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-G Accordingly, TRBT formed a three-member Expert Committee which went through the representation so submitted and the materials provided by the petitioners in support of their claim and decided the Answer to the question that were challenged (i.e. Question NO. 9 of Booklet Series A, Question NO. 18 in Booklet Series B and Question no. 30 in Booklet Series C) and the answer which was decided is D, which is NONE OF THE ABOVE. On the basis of the decision of the Expert Committee, TRBT informed the Petitioners vide Memo No F.10(1)/TRBT/ COR/2024/549 dated 08/08/2025.

Copy of Memo vide No F.10(1)/TRBT/COR/2024/549 dated 08/08/2025 is enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure-H

“18.

It is well-settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other amodes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. Now, in the present case, if the telephones of the appellants were to be disconnected on the ground of misuse, then they had to give, in consonance with the principles of natural justice, opportunity to the appellants to explain their conduct before taking action under Rule 427 read with Rules 416 and 421. Resort to the wrong and more drastic course provided in Rule 422, on a ground which was not germane to an action under that rule, vitiates the impugned order, particularly when it is manifest that in making the impugned order, the General Manager was influenced more by this ground and less, if at all, by the existence of “public emergency” certified by the Delhi Administration.”

“7.

In both the appeals, the only question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge that decision of the Expert Committee regarding correct answer key of question No.135 of Question Booklet Series-104C, warrants interference. No other issue was raised during the course of arguments by learned counsel appearing for the parties in both the appeals.

25.

The principles propounded and the legal position settled in the aforesaid decisions were reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent judicial pronouncements in the cases of Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Others Vs. Arun Kumar and Others, (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Other (2021) 2 SCC 309. In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another (supra), once again there was reference to the decision in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others (supra). It was observed as under:

“16.

In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.””

“15.

It is well settled that High Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of a Subject Experts and it cannot decide, whether a option treated as 'correct' in reply to a question by Subject Expert, is correct or not. Thus, this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by Subject Experts.

16.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, has held as under:-

"20.

In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."

17.

Thus, this Court cannot take upon itself the task of Examiner or that of Selecting Body and examine the discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. It is repeatedly held that Constitutional Courts should be extremely reluctant in substituting its own views over the opinion of subject experts in academic matters. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khusboo Shrivastava and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523 has held as under:-

"11.

In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh BhupeshkumarSheth has observed:

"29.... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroots problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded."”

“44.

In this batch of appeals, the appellants have also challenged the final key answers on the ground that the tentative/preliminary key answers, according to them, were correct answers, which had been changed in the final answer keys.

59.

Thus, the law is well-settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect, but, also it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Court must exercise great restrain in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers.

62.

To conduct a large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate one. In the present cases, subject experts had passed their opinion in sealed cover, where they also disclosed the sources and materials on the basis of which they came to the conclusion as regards the correct and final key answers to the subject questions.

63.

Though logically, this Court is convinced with the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellants in making an attempt to demonstrate that their argument is correct by referring answers to the questions with multiple choices by referring locally circulated books which are normally referred by the local candidates. This Court testing the issue only under the logical reasoning may not be justified since, the Court has to give credence to the expert opinion and which is there on record and the same has been relied by the learned Single Judge. Since a huge number of candidates have appeared to the exams and a large number of candidates have succeeded, but for some technical points raised by handful of unsuccessful candidates, the entire re-evaluation cannot be made under as it will be collapsing the system.”