1. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee is present on behalf of the applicant-petitioners. Learned Addl. GA, Mr. Karnajit De is present on behalf of the respondents-State and Learned Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey is present on behalf of the respondents-TPSC.
2. The present applicant-petitioners have filed the connected writ petition before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“1. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to give marks to each of the Petitioners in regard to the Questions Nos- 7, 29, 77, 80, 95 of Question Booklet Series-B (corresponding to Question Nos- 7, 71, 39, 42, 57 of Series A, Question Nos-7, 51, 99, 22, 37 of Series C & Question Nos- 7, 89, 57, 60, 75 of Series D) of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Engineer, Grade-l, Civil Engineering, 2025.
ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to republish the result of the Petitioners after awarding marks to the Petitioners in regard to the Questions Nos-7, 29, 77, 80, 95 of Question Booklet Series-B (corresponding to Question Nos- 7, 71, 39, 42, 57 of Series A, Question Nos- 7, 51, 99, 22, 37 of Series C & Question Nos- 7, 89, 57, 60, 75 of Series D) of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering, 2025.
iii. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to quash/cancel the impugned Notification, dated, 12.03.2026, and issue fresh directions to the Respondents to reconsider the disputed Questions with proper reasoning and fairness, ensuring that the Petitioners' results are revised and their future career prospects, document verification, eligibility, etc. are not affected.
iv. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to quash/cancel the impugned Notification, dated, 19.03.2026.
V. Pass an Interim Order directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to participate in the Main Examination for Recruitment to the Post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering, scheduled to be held on 02.05.2026, in pursuance with the Advertisement, dated, 13.02.2025.
vi. Make the rules absolute,
vii. Call for records,
viii. Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper.
And
For this act of kindness, the Petitioners are as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
3. Along with the writ petition this interlocutory application is filed by the applicant-petitioners for directing the respondents-TPSC to allow the applicant-petitioners to appear in the Main Examination for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering, scheduled to be held on 02.05.2026 in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 13.02.2025.
4. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners first of all drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-1 of the writ petition i.e. the Advertisement No.08/2025 by which the respondents-TPSC called for online application for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I and Grade-II, Civil Engineering under Rural Development Department, Govt. of Tripura. Referring the said Annexure-1 to the writ petition, Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of “selection process” which is as follows:
“Preliminary Examination (MCQ Type) carrying 100 marks. The Preliminary Examination is meant to serve as a screening test only for the purpose of selection of candidates for the Main Examination. The marks obtained in this examination by the candidates will not be considered for final selection. A limited number of candidates, maximum 05(five) times of total posts (category wise) will be selected merit wise on the basis of the result of Preliminary Examination, subject to securing minimum qualifying marks (40% for UR & 30% for reserved category candidates). Only those candidates who will be declared qualified at the Preliminary Examination will be eligible for admission to the Main Examination.”
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite the clear stipulation that candidates securing 40% qualifying marks would be eligible to appear in the Main Examination but, in the present case, the applicant-petitioners were not called for to appear in the Main Examination scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. on 02.05.2026, even though they have secured the qualifying marks.
Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-12 of the writ petition i.e. the brief summary of the result of Preliminary Examination for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering released by the respondents-TPSC wherein in the third column, the qualifying cut-off marks are mentioned as follows: 44 out of 100 for UR (Male), 40 for UR (Female), 40.75 for SC (Male), 35 for SC (Female), 36.25 for ST (Male) and 33.75 for ST (Female). It is submitted by Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners that the said cut-off marks are contrary to and beyond the guidelines prescribed under Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners further drawn the attention of this Court to para Nos.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the writ petition and submitted that the applicant-petitioners have challenged the answers to the Question Nos.7, 29, 77, 80 and 95 of the Question Booklet Series-B (corresponding to Question Nos. 7, 71, 39, 42 and 57 of Series A; Question Nos. 7, 51, 99, 22 and 37 of Series C; and Question Nos. 7, 89, 57, 60 and 75 of Series D). The relevant portions of the aforesaid paras are reproduced hereunder:
“20. That, in the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioners herein challenge the aforesaid questions on the following grounds: -
Question No-7 of Series-A (identically numbered in all Series) The said question is extracted herein below: -
"Select the correct option which is closest to the opposite in meaning of the underlined words in Question Nos. 7 to 8."
"7. He has penchant for writing satirical poems."
(A) dislike
(B) bias
(C) repulsion
(D) hatred
A. TPSC has declared the Option-A, i.e., 'dislike' is the correct answer in the tentative and final answer keys.
B. That, so far Question No. 7 is concerned, the Petitioners submit, that, Options A, C and D are all correct answers, and Option A cannot be singled out as the only correct answer.
*** *** ***
21. Question No-29 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-71 of Series A, Q. No.-51 of Series-C & Q. No.- 89 of Series-D) The said question is extracted herein below: -
"29. CBR is a measure of"
(A) Soil classification
(B) Soil strength
(C) Relative stiffness of paving material
(D) Shear strength under lateral confinement
A. TPSC has declared the Option-B, i.e., 'Soil Strength' as the correct answer in the tentative as well as in the final answer key.
B. That, so far Question No-29 is concerned, the Petitioners submit, that, Options B and C are both correct answers, and Option B cannot be singled out as the only correct answer. As such the answer to the said question is required to be declared star (*) and the Petitioners required to be given 1 mark in respect to the said question.
*** *** ***
22. Question No-77 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-39 of Series A, Q. No.-99 of Series-C & Q. No.- 5 of Series-D)
The said question is extracted hereinbelow: -
"Given that scope of the construction work is well defined with all its drawings specifications, quantities and estimates, which one of the following types of contract would be most preferred?"
(A) EPC contract
(B) Percentage rate contract
(C) Item rate contract
(D) Lump sum contract
A. TPSC has declared the Option-C, i.e., Item rate contract' is the correct answer in the tentative answer key as well as in the final answer key.
B. That, so far Question No-77 is concerned, the Petitioners submit, that, the answer declared by the TPSC, i.e., Option-(C) "Item rate contract," is wrong and incorrect.
*** *** ***
23. Question No-80 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-42 of Series A, Q. No.-22 of Series-C & Q. No. 60 of Series-D)
The said question is extracted herein below: -
"80. If the pressure on a clay layer increases slightly from 'p' to „p + δpā and the void ratio decreases from e0 to e, then the co-efficient of compressibility is given by"
(A) e/p
(B) e0/δp
(C) e/δp
(D) e – e0/δp
A. TPSC has declared the Option-D, as the correct answer in the tentative answer key as well as in the final answer key.
B. That, so far Question No-80 is concerned, the Petitioners submit, that, the answer declared by the Respondent-Commission, i.e., Option-(D) “(e – e0)/ δp,” is wrong, defective and inaccurate.
*** *** ***
24. Question No-95 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-57 of Series A, Q. No.-37 of Series-C & Q. No.- 75 of Series-D)
The said question is extracted herein below: -
"95. pH value of dairy waste water is approximately"
(A) 6.2
(B) 7.2
(C) 8.2
(D) 5.2
A. TPSC has declared the Option-B, i.e., '7.2' as the correct answer in the tentative answer key as well as in the final answer key.
B. That, so far Question No-95 is concerned, the Petitioners submit, that, B. That, so far as Question No.
95 of Series-B is concerned, the Petitioners submit that the answer declared by the Respondent-Commission, i.e., Option-(B) "7.2," as the sole and only correct answer, is wrong, inaccurate and defective……..
*** *** ***”
Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court to para No.31 of the writ petition wherein the details of the marks obtained by the applicant-petitioners are given. The relevant portion of para No.31 is reproduced hereunder:
| Sl.No. | Name of etitioners | Category | Pass Marks/Qualifying Marks | Marks Obtained |
| 1. | BODHIPRIYA SAHA | UR | 40 | 37.25 |
| 2. | ALAK DEBNATH | UR | 44 | 41.75 |
| 3. | ARGHYA DATTA | UR | 44 | 43.25 |
| 4. | NILOTPAL DAS | SC | 40.75 | 37.25 |
| 5. | RAIMA DEBBARMA | ST | 30.25 | 33.75 |
| 6. | SHANTA SAHA | UR | 37.25 | 40 |
| 7. | RISA DEBBARMA | ST | 32.5 | 33.75 |
| 8. | DIPIKA DEBNATH | UR | 39.25 | 40 |
| 9. | IMRAN HOSSEIN | UR | 42.5 | 44 |
| 10. | DIPANKAR DAS | 36.75 | 36.75 | 40.75 |
| 11. | BIBEK SARKAR | 40.5 | 40.5 | 40.75 |
5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondents-TPSC and submitted that Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners has misinterpreted the selection procedure as mentioned in the advertisement. Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey further submitted a written note wherein it has been mentioned that for selection of 34 posts under UR(Male) category, a total of 683 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination, out of which 233 candidates secured the qualifying marks i.e. 40 or above. It was further submitted that as per the Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2022 (for short, Rules, 2022), for one post, a maximum of five candidates may be called for Main Written Examination i.e. in the ratio of 1:5 for each post. Accordingly, for 34 UR (Male) posts, maximum 170(34 x5) candidates from the top could be called for the Main Written Examination. Accordingly, TPSC prepared a merit list for all candidates i.e. 683 candidates who appeared in the Preliminary Examination and out of that first 170 candidates as per the merit list have been called for Main Written Examination. Learned Counsel for the respondents-TPSC submitted that although 233 candidates qualified Preliminary Examination, but for 34 posts only top 170 candidates were called for. Learned Counsel for the respondents-TPSC further submitted that the applicant-petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 9 secured qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination but they are not eligible for sitting in the Main Written Examination as they scored less than 44 marks.
In respect of UR (Female) candidates i.e. applicant-petitioner Nos.1, 6 and 8, it is submitted that for selection of 19 posts of UR (Female), 192 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination out of which 59 candidates scored qualifying marks i.e. 40 or above and as per aforesaid rules of 2022, for one post maximum five numbers of candidates are to be called for. Accordingly, the TPSC prepared merit list for all the candidates i.e. 192 candidates who appeared in the Preliminary Examination and out of that, first 59 candidates who scored 40 marks or above and qualified in the preliminary examination were called for. The applicant-petitioner Nos.1, 6 and 8 did not secure qualifying marks i.e. 40 marks in the Preliminary Examination and as such, their names have not been considered for Main Examination.
In respect of SC (Male) candidates i.e. applicant-petitioner Nos.4,10 and 11, it is submitted that there are total 18 posts out of which 6 SC posts are reserved for Women and remaining 12 SC posts are for SC(Male). For the selection of 12 posts of SC(Male) as many as 255 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination out of which 151 candidates scored qualifying marks i.e. 30 or above. As per the said Rules for 12 SC (Male) posts, maximum 60(12 x5) candidates from the top could be called for sitting in the Main Written Examination. Accordingly, TPSC prepared merit list for 255 candidates and out of that 60 candidates were called for in the Main Examination. Although 151 candidates qualified the Preliminary Examination but for 12 posts only top 60 candidates as per merit list were called for sitting in the Main Examination. The applicant-petitioner Nos.4, 10 and 11 although secured qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination but they were not eligible for sitting in the Main Examination as last selected candidates who was qualified and selected for Main Examination has obtained 40.75 marks. Since the applicant-petitioner Nos.4, 10 and 11 did not secure marks within the top 60 candidates so their names were not considered for appearing in the Main Written Examination.
In respect of ST (Female) candidates i.e. applicant-petitioner Nos.5 and 7, there are total 32 posts out of which 11 ST posts are reserved for Women and 1 ST post is reserved for Ex-Servicemen and remaining 20 ST posts are for ST(Male). For the selection of 11 posts of ST(Female) as many as 178 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination out of which 80 candidates scored qualifying marks i.e. 30 or above. As per the said Rules for 11 ST (Female) posts, maximum 55(11 x5) candidates from the top may be called for sitting in the Main Written Examination. Accordingly, TPSC prepared a merit list for all candidates i.e. 178 candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination and out of that first 55 candidates as per the merit list have been called for Main Written Examination. It is submitted that although 80 candidates qualified Preliminary Examination but for 11 posts only top 55 candidates could be called for. In the present case, even though the applicant-petitioner Nos.5 and 7 secured qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination but they are not eligible for sitting in the Main Written Examination as the last selected candidate who has qualified and selected for Main Examination has obtained more than 33.75 marks. Since, the applicant-petitioner Nos.5 and 7 did not secure marks within the top 55 candidates, their names have not been selected for sitting in the Main Examination.
In respect of answer keys, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents-TPSC that the MCQs have been shuffled among the 04(four) different Booklet Series viz- A, B, C & D. After conducting the Preliminary Examination, the Provisional Answer Key was published on 10.11.2025 and it was instructed to submit representation on the provisional answer key within 07(seven) working days. In response to the publication of the Provisional Answer Key in total 44 nos. of questions have been challenged through Online Challenge Mechanism System [Part-I & II for 5 (five) no. of questions for English & GK and Part-III for 39 (thirty-nine) no. of questions for Engineering paper].
Learned Counsel further submitted that the Commission has constituted 2 (two) Scrutiny Committee, 1 (one) Scrutiny Committee for Part-I & II comprising 02 (two) Senior Faculty Members and another Scrutiny Committee for Part-III comprising 04 (four) Senior Faculty Members from the Civil Engineering Branch to review the claims of the candidates. The meeting of the Scrutiny Committees was held on 12.12.2025 for finalization of Answer Keys of "General Studies & Engineering Aptitude" for Civil Engineering and after threadbare analysis of the claims of the candidates, the Committees submitted its recommendations on 12.12.2025.
It is submitted that the allegation of the applicant-petitioners against the question bearing No.7, 29, 77, 80 & 95 of Booklet Series-B were challenged by the candidates during the submission of challenge through Online Challenge Mechanism System. The said five questions along with remaining 39 questions were placed before the Scrutiny Committees. Relying upon the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committees, the final answer keys for the Paper "General Studies & Engineering Aptitude" have been finalized. Thereafter, the Commission published the Final Answer key of Preliminary Examination on 17.12.2025. On the basis of said final answer keys, result of Preliminary Examination was published and vide Notification dated 12.03.2026 it was mentioned that the Main Examination of the provisionally qualified candidates is scheduled to be held on and from 02.05.2026 for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I (Degree), Civil Engineering under Rural Development Department, Govt. of Tripura. Learned Counsel submitted that the allegation of the applicant-petitioners in respect of the question nos.7, 29, 77, 80 & 95 of Question Booklet Series-B is baseless and not maintainable.
6. Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey relied upon one judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 wherein in para Nos.30.3, 30.4, 30.5 and 31, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:
“30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.”
Learned Counsel further relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through it Chairman & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, wherein in para Nos.13 and 14, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:
“13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.”
Relying upon the same, Learned Counsel submitted that there is no merit in the petition filed by the applicant-petitioners and as such, the same needs to be dismissed with cost.
7. I have given anxious hearing of both the sides and also gone through the recruitment notification and the contention raised by the applicant-petitioners in the writ petition. I have also gone through the written note submitted by the respondents-TPSC.
8. After going through the relevant papers, prima facie, it appears that the stand of TPSC is contrary to the guidelines issued in the recruitment notification regarding securing of marks. Furthermore, in respect of Questions Nos.7, 29, 77, 80 and 95 of Question Booklet Series-B, there is some basis on the submissions made by Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners which at this stage cannot be straightway rejected till further verification is made. Moreso, from the demonstration made by Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners it appears that the applicant-petitioners have got some locus to challenge the decision of the respondents-TPSC regarding answers to the questions as referred above.
However, the written examination is scheduled to be held on 02.05.2026(tomorrow). Hence, it is ordered that the respondents-TPSC shall allow the applicant-petitioners, provisionally to appear in the Main Written Examination and that the candidature of the applicant-petitioners shall be subject to the outcome of the connected writ petition filed by the petitioners.
With this observation, the present interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of.
A copy of this order be supplied to Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey for the respondents-TPSC for information and compliance in course of the day. Also a copy of this order be supplied to Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners for information in course of the day.