Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Bhaumik is present for the applicants.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Nath is present on behalf of the writ petitioners in the main writ petition. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. D. Sarma appears on behalf of the State-respondents.

This application is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, 1908 read with Rule 10 of Chapter VIII(A) of the High Court of Tripura Rules, 2023 for adding the present applicants as party i.e. respondent Nos.6 & 7 in WP(C) No.550 of 2025.

The matter is taken up for hearing.

At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Bhaumik appearing for the applicants submitted that the TRBT issued one advertisement on 18.12.2024 inviting application from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Physical Education Teacher and in total 125 posts were notified. The present applicants being eligible applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher and they were found eligible by the TRBT. Accordingly admit card was issued in favour of the applicants. The number of the Applicant No.1 was allotted Roll No.9067112500014 and the Applicant No.2 was allotted Roll No.9067112500032. As per the admit cards the applicants were to appear for written test on 23.03.2025 from 12 noon to 2.30 pm at Umakanta Academy, Agartala, West Tripura. The applicants appeared for written exam. Thereafter the TRBT declared the result of written test. In the written test the Applicant No.1 secured 114 marks and the Applicant No.2 secured 111 marks.

After that vide notice dated 25.06.2025 all the candidates were called for scrutiny of mark sheets, documents, certificates, etc. Accordingly, the applicants appeared for scrutiny and they were found eligible.

In the meantime, Sri Rubal Debnath and Sri Pintu Debnath filed the writ petition on the ground that their candidature were rejected by the TRBT at the time of scrutiny of documents on the ground that they did not obtain Masters Degree from NCTE recognized institution. The case was registered and this High Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed an interim order directing the respondents to keep two posts vacant for the writ petitioners, till disposal of the writ petition.

According to Learned Counsel for the applicants, those petitioners have secured lesser marks than the present applicants. Now, due to interim order the TRBT in the Selection List Annexure-8 dated 27.10.2025 mentioned that two posts have been kept vacant as per verdict of the High Court. Due to the direction of the High Court the names of the present applicants were not recommended by the TRBT which compelled them to appear before this Court to file application in this writ petition for adding them as party.

According to Learned Counsel if the prayer is not allowed then they will be seriously prejudiced because they have secured more marks than the writ petitioners.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman appearing for the original writ petitioners submitted that they could have filed separate writ petition but without filing separate writ petition there is no scope to file any I.A. and prayed for rejecting the same. It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that the writ petition was filed for different purpose. The applicants have got no locus to file the present petition.

Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. D. Sarma appearing for the State-respondents submitted that they have nothing to say in respect of the I.A. filed by the applicants.

At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants also relied upon one citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 wherein in Para Nos.13, 14 and 15, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”

14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party.

15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.”

Relying upon the same Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the present applicants are necessary party for decision of this writ petition.

I have heard both the sides and perused the citation referred by the applicants at the time of hearing.

Prima facie it appears that the present applicants have secured more marks than the writ petitioners of the writ petition and two posts have been kept reserved by the Authority as per order of this Court and if the prayer of the petitioners is not allowed in that case they may be prejudiced. Thus, it appears that the applicants have prima facie cause to allow them to contest this writ petition as respondent Nos.6 & 7.

So after hearing both the sides and also after going through the documents annexed with the application, it appears that the applicants are necessary party to be impleaded as respondents in the main writ petition.

Accordingly, the prayer filed by the applicants stands allowed.

The Registry be asked to add the name of the present applicants as respondent Nos.6 & 7 in the main writ petition wherein they shall be at liberty to file their counter-affidavit on or before the next date.

With these observations, this present I.A. stands disposed of.