01. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. A. Bhaumik appearing for the petitioner and also heard Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. K. De, Learned Addl. G.A. and Ms. P. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

02. Taking part in the hearing Learned Counsel Mr. A. Bhaumik appearing for the petitioner first of all drawn the attention of the Court that the petitioners No.1-8 are/were pursuing D.El.Ed course and petitioner No.9. is/was pursuing B.Ed course from the respective institution and they approached for TET exam to the authority for appearing in the TET examination on the basis of their available qualifications and accordingly the respondents TET authority accepted their online application and issued registration certificates. It was further submitted that as per guideline issued by the National Council for Education and Training (Annexure-20) of the writ petition one of the criteria for appearing in the examination in clause-5(ii) as follows:

               “A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23rd August 2010.”

               It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that in the said document in the column No.7 it was mentioned that the examination of TET would consists of two papers and the Paper I will be for the candidates who intends to be a teacher for classes I to V and Paper II will be for the persons who intends to be a teacher for classes VI to VIII and the person who intends to be a teacher for Class-I to V or for classes VI to VIII shall have to appear in both the papers i.e. Paper I and Paper II.

03. Learned Counsel further submitted that in column No.9 of the said document (Annexure-20) further it was mentioned that:

               “9. A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)

               (a) may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;

               (b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.”

               Referring the same he submitted that according to the guideline a person who will be securing 60% marks or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. Learned Counsel further drawn the attention of the Court that para-14 of the said guideline it is mentioned as under:

               Award of TET Certificate

               “14. The appropriate Government conducting the Test shall award a TET Certificate to all successful candidates. The certificate should contain the name and address of the candidate, date of birth, Registration No. year/month of award of Certificate, marks obtained in each Paper, class level of its validity (Class I to V, class VI to VIII or both), and, in case of classes VI to VIII, the subject area (Science and Mathematics, Social Studies, etc.). The certificate may be electronically generated with adequate security features. Appropriate may consider utilizing the services of specialized agencies for issuing de-materialized (demat) TET certificates as a security feature to avoid any kind of malpractice.”

04. Learned Counsel again submitted that as per notification dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure-21 to the writ petition) the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has persuaded the following criteria for eligibility of appointment as a teacher in class I to VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 which are as follows:

               1. Minimum Qualification.-

               (i) Classes 1-V

               (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (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 (Recongnition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.

               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)

               AND

               (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

               (ii) Classes VI-VIII

               (a) B.A/B.Sc and 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

               OR

               B.A/B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1- year Bachelor in Education (B. Ed)

               OR

               B.A/B.Sc. with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard.

               OR

               Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year BA/B.Sc. Ed or B.A.Ed/B.Sc.Ed.

               OR

               B.A./B. SC. With at least 50% marks and 1-year B.Ed. (Special Education)

               AND

               (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test(TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

05. Mr. Bhaumik thereafter submitted that in pursuance of the advertisement all the petitioners have appeared in the TET examination conducted by the authority and as per terms and conditions all the petitioners have secured eligible marks to be awarded TET certificate. The petitioner Dilip Sarkar secured 86, Ripan Das 85, Diptanu Das 90, Abhiram Majumder 91, Rohan Sharma 90, Babujit Nag 91, Subarna Dey 105 in paper-I and Subarna Dey in T- TET paper-II 95. But the respondents authority in prospectus cum instruction (Annexure-22) in clause-1(d) prescribed the following guidelines:

               “(d) Candidates who are appearing in the final year of Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) etc. are provisionally allowed to appear in the T-TET 2024. Such candidates must have to produce Bachelor Degree in Education (B.Ed)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) etc. pass mark-sheet during scrutiny of mark- sheets/certificates/documents or else their candidature will be cancelled without further notification and no appeal to this end will be considered.”

               Referring the same Learned Counsel Mr. Bhaumik submitted that the said clause-d is totally is contrary to the guidelines issued by the NCTE on 11.02.2021 and this embargo has compelled the petitioners to file this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

               (i) Issue Notice upon the Respondents.

               (ii) Call for the relevant records.

               (iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) Certificate shall not be issued in favour of the Petitioners having successfully passed the T-TET 2024 Examination as per guidelines issued by National Council for Teacher Education dated 11th February, 2011.

               And

               Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Note d of Clause 1(B) of the Prospectus cum instructions of T-TET- 2024 dated Nil issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura whereby it has been provided that candidates appearing in T-TET 2024 Examination who are pursuing Bachelor Degree. In Education (B.Ed)/Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) will have to produce their final pass mark-sheet during scrutiny of mark-sheets/certificates/documents, etc or else their candidature will be cancelled shall not be set aside and quashed by this Hon‟ble Court.

               And

               Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the stipulation in the notice dated 26.06.2025 whereby it has been provided that candidates appearing in T-TET 2024: Paper I and Paper-II as „appearing candidates‟ will have to produce the final year pass mark sheet of B.Ed/D. El. Ed during scrutiny of mark- sheets/certificates, etc failing which their candidature will be cancelled shall not be set aside and quashed by this Hon‟ble Court.

               (iv) And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute.

               And

               In the interim, be pleased to stay the further process of T-TET 2024, Paper I and Paper II conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) till disposal of the connected writ petition.

               And/Or

               Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.

               And

               For this act of kindness your humble petitioners as in duty bound shall ever remain grateful.

               (v) Call for records,

               (vi) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon‟ble High Court considered fit and proper.

06. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5564 of 2019 in Omkar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2021) 14 SCC 486 wherein in para No.7.1 and 7.3 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “7.1. The issue involved in the present appeals is the meaning and interpretation of the word “pursuing” as appearing in Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines. The question for consideration is the eligibility criteria to appear in TET examination. It is apparent from the reading of the guidelines framed by NCTE, Para 5 that the incumbents who have acquired the qualification academic as well as professional can apply for TET examination. The second category of candidates who can apply for TET examination is those who are “pursuing” any teacher training course (“TTC”). The meaning of “pursuing” is a person who is undergoing any of the teacher training course (“TTC”). He/she must have been admitted and pursuing the teacher training course which is prescribed as a qualification. Declaration of the result, appearing in the examination or date of filling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteria to appear in TET examination. Therefore, a candidate who is undergoing i.e. “pursuing” the requisite teacher training course (“TTC”) shall be eligible to appear in TET examination.

7.3. Looking to the clear wordings in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines and the phrase used is “pursuing”, the High Court is not justified in adding the additional riders, such as, that to become eligible for appearing in TET examination, a candidate must have appeared in the TTC examination and the result have not been declared by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET examination. As per the dictionary meaning, the word “pursuing” means undergoing and/or proceeding further. Therefore, a candidate who has been admitted in any of the TTC and undergoing the teacher training course (“TTC”) can be said to be “pursuing” such teacher training course and shall be eligible to appear in TET examination, irrespective of the fact that whether, by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET examination, he has, in fact, appeared in the examination of the teacher training course concerned and the result is awaited. “Pursuing” the requisite teacher training course is sufficient to make such a candidate eligible to appear in TET examination. Therefore, on a fair reading of clause 5(ii) of the NCTE Guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC and is pursuing, he/she can appear in TET examination. In the present case, admittedly, on the cut-off date, all the candidates were pursuing the teacher training course concerned. Thereafter, all of them have cleared TET examination as well as have cleared the teacher training course concerned. At the time when they were appointed as Assistant Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers. All of them have passed TET examination and have also passed the TTC as per the requisite eligibility criteria. Thus, in our view, ousting certain incumbents by the High Court cannot be sustained since they were pursuing TTC and they were clearly eligible to appear in TET examination and have passed it while pursuing the requisite professional qualification for being eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers.”

               Referring the same it was submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get relief in this writ petition by setting aside the relevant clause-1(d) of the said prospectus (Annexure-22 to the writ petition). It was also submitted that based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court the NCTE by a memo dated 04.08.2022 has issued one clarification regarding eligibility for appearing in C-TET. The relevant contents of the said clarification letter is mentioned herein below:

               “I am directed to refer to your letter No. DE.3(44)/DRC(EIII)/TGT (Punjabi)/Female/2022/1051 dated 28.07.2022 on the subject cited above and to say that the Civil Appeal No.5564 of 2019 (arising from SLP (C)No.16698/2018 was disposed of by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 16.07.2019. The operative para of the said order is as under:

               “Para 8.3……as per dictionary meaning, the word “pursuing” means undergoing and/or proceeding further. Therefore, a candidate who has been admitted in any of the TTC and undergoing the teacher training course (TTC) can be said to be “pursuing” such teacher training course and shall be eligible to appear in the TET examination, irrespective of the fact that whether, by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET examination, he has, in fact appeared in the examination of the concerned teacher training course and the result is awaited. “Pursuing” the requisite teacher training course is sufficient to make such a candidate eligible to appear in the TET examination. Therefore, on a fair reading of Clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC and is pursuing, he/she can appear in the TET examination”….

               “Para 8.4….Therefore, it is clear that the respective appellants herein whose appointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TET examination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC. Thus, we hold that the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid extent, is not sustainable. The impugned orders of the High Court are accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent…”

               Referring the same Learned Counsel submitted that the persons ‘pursuing’ in the examination are eligible to appear in the TET examination at the time when they are pursuing the concerned B.Ed/D.El.Ed and since the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is very specific in this regard, so he urged for setting aside/quashing the note of clause-1(d) of the Prospectus cum Instructions of T-TET, 2024.

07. On the other hand, Learned Advocate General assisted by Learned Addl. G.A. Mr. K. De and Ms. P. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submitted that the respondents also stand agree with the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court the present petitioners were allowed to appear in examination and as such there was no disobedience to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. But regarding clause-1(d) of the prospectus he submitted that the petitioners were given liberty to appear in the examination with the condition that at the time of scrutiny of their marksheets/certificates/documents they were supposed to produce their pass marksheets which they failed to produce and as such their candidature were rightly cancelled. In this regard Learned Advocate General relied upon one citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anoher vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 wherein in para No.14 and 17 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.

               17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed:-

               “We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner‟s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.”

               Referring the same Learned Advocate General submitted that in view of the citation there is no scope to grant any relief in this writ petition to the petitioners.

08. Learned Advocate General referred another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 wherein in para Nos.12, 13, 16 and 21 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.

               13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18)

               “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345].)”

               16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission [Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21] , candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.

               21. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench cannot held to be in error in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result, once they were declared to be unsuccessful. During the course of the hearing, this Court is informed that four out of six candidates, who were ultimately selected, figured both in the first process of selection as well as in the subsequent selection. One candidate is stated to have retired.”

               Referring the same Learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioners were very much aware about the conditions imposed in the Prospectus cum Instructions and knowing fully the same of selection they participated in the process so at this stage there is no scope to entertain their contention that the same is contrary to the guidelines of NCTE.

09. Learned Advocate General Mr. S. M. Chakraborty also relied upon another citation of Hon’ble in State of Orissa and Others vs. Gopinath Dash and Others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 495 wherein in para No.5 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “5. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Ashif Hamid v. State of J. & K. (AIR 1989 SC 1899), Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1277). The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere.”

               Referring the same he submitted that the considering the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage there is no scope on the part of this Writ Court to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the executive decision regarding ‘production of certificates/marksheets’ at the time of verification which the petitioners have failed to produce before the authority and lastly Learned Advocate General also referred another citation in P.U. Joshi and Others vs. Accountant Genral, Ahmedabad and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 wherein in para No.10 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.”

               Referring the same he submitted that in view of the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. However, at the time of hearing Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon one notice dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Controller of Examinations, TRBT from which it appears that the TRBT has decided to distribute the certificate of the qualified candidates of T.TET, 2024 on 17.12.2025, 18.12.2025, 19.12.2025 and 20.12.2025 who were found eligible as per the prescribed norms of eligibility for both paper-I and paper-II of T-TET, 2024.

11. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition and also the citations referred by both the sides. Admittedly all the present petitioners appeared in the T-TET, 2024 and they have secured the marks as indicated above. But at the time of scrutiny of documents they could not produce their pass marksheets of the concerned D.El.Ed and B. Ed examination resulting which their candidature were not considered by the respondents authority. The petitioners submitted representation raising all these issues by a communication dated 20.06.2025 to the Member Secretary, TRBT, Agartala. According to them no response was given in this regard by the TRBT authority which compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition. However, after going through the documents annexed with writ petition i.e. Annexure-20, 21 and 22 and also the judgment relied upon by the petitioner it appears to this Court that the candidates who were ‘pursuing’ their technical education like B. Ed/D.El.Ed were permitted to appear in the selection test of C-TET or equivalent examination and accordingly the present petitioners were duly registered by the TRBT authority and they were issued admit cards to appear in the exam but their certificate could not be issued (T-TET exam) as they failed to produce their relevant pass marksheets/certificates of the technical education to the TRBT authority. Admittedly in this case the petitioners did not challenge the prospectus issued by the TRBT i.e. Annexure-22 annexed with this writ petition earlier. So it appears that knowing fully the terms and conditions issued by the authority they appeared in the examination. So legally they are estopped from raising this point at this belated stage. Moreso, if the authority permits the candidates to appear in the TET examination those who are pursuing in the technical education in that case there cannot be any bar on the part of the authority to impose such condition to produce the relevant pass marksheets at the time of scrutiny. As such it appears to this Court that the petitioners have failed to make out any case in their favour to quash the said clause-1(d) of the prospectus (Anneuxre- 22).

12. However, from the notice dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Controller of Examinations, TRBT it appears that certain dates have been fixed by the authority for distribution of certificates of T-TET, 2024 this it appears to this Court that the entire process of said T-TET examination has not yet been completed till today and as such considering the facts and circumstances of this case it appears to this Court that a direction be given to the respondents authority to consider the candidature of the present petitioners if by this time they have completed their relevant technical education.

13. In the result, the writ petition filed by the present petitioners stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of present nine petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment/order provided that the petitioner by this time have/had completed their education and produce their relevant pass marksheets/pass certificates of the technical education for scrutiny of the authority and also that they have qualified their T-TET examination, 2024 as per the eligible criteria laid down by the authority. This judgment cannot be applied as a precedent in other case.

               With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

               Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.