Tripura High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tripura on 23 March, 2022
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.539 of 2021
1. Rajib Debnath,
son of Amulya Chandra Debnath,
resident of Buddha Mandir, Abhaynagar,
Agartala, West Tripura
2. Rinku Bhowmik,
daughter of Kanulal Bhowmik,
resident of Ramnagar, Road No- 7,
Agartala, West Tripura
3. Biki Debnath,
son of late Biswa Debnath,
resident of Rangutia, Bamutia Lefunga, Mohanpur
4.Tamajit Das,
son of Tapan Das,
resident of Khas Chowmuhani,
Melaghar, Sonamura, Sephaijala
5.Barnali Das,
daughter of Amaresh Das,
resident of Ward no 47, South Badarghat,
Agartala Sadar
6.Kallol Kanti Das,
son of Kripesh Kanti Das,
resident of Roy Colony, Amtali,
Agartala, West Tripura
7.Rajesh Sen,
son of Rana Sen,
resident of Lambuchara,
Kamalpur, Dhalai
8.Chiranjit Sutradhar,
son of Biswajit Sutradhar,
resident of Kashipur, Mission Road, Agartala
9.Pankaj Das,
son of Shyamal Das,
resident of Camper Bazar,
Agartala, West Tripura
10.Dipanjali Mazumdar,
daughter of Dipak Mazumdar,
resident of Bagmara (Near Tripura University),
Amtali, West Tripura
Page 2 of 26
11.Rahul Deb,
son of Ranjit Deb,
resident of Beltali, A.D.Nagar, West Tripura
12.Diya Gupta,
daughter of Biswajit Gupta,
resident of Ker Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura
13.Moumita Saha,
daughter of Balai Chandra Saha,
resident of Nalgaria, Ranirbazar,
Agartala, Sadar
14.Kishore Sutradhar,
son of Sankar Sutradhar,
resident of Kathaltali, Agartala, West Tripura
15.Babu Dey,
son of Late Bishnupada Dey,
resident of Gurkhabasti,
Agartala, Sadar, West Tripura
16.Ramu Debnath,
son of Ratan Debnath,
resident of Amtali Uttar Madhya Para,
Amtali, West Tripura
17.Prasanta Debnath,
son of Ranjit Debnath,
resident of Rajnagar, Udaipur, Gomati
18.Abdul Matin,
son of Muklichur Rahman,
resident of Sonamura, Udaipur, Gomati
19.Kartic Chandra Saha,
son of Pran Krishna Saha,
resident of South Mirza, Samukchara,
Udaipur, Gomati
20.Manidipa Bhowmik,
daughter of Makhan Lal Bhowmik,
resident of Town Rajarbag, Udaipur, Gomati
21.Satyajit Chakraborty,
son of Sitangsu Chakrbaorty,
resident of Madhya Nayapara,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
22.Ananya Dhar,
daughter of Nepal Ranjan Dhar,
resident of Rajbari, Dharmanagar, North Tripura
23.Priyatosh Debnath,
son of Harendra Debnath,
Page 3 of 26
resident of Jubarajnagar,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
24.Biman Paul,
son of Bijoy Paul,
resident of Swarnamayee Lane,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
25.Nayanmani Deb,
son of late Kshirendra Deb,
resident of Kanchanpur, North Tripura
26.Priyanka Sinha,
daughter of Babulal Sinha,
resident of Nadiapur, Kalacherra,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
27.Muhit Chandra Nath,
son of Sunil Chandra Nath,
resident of Radhamadhabpur,
Dasda, North Tripura
28.Sudeep Sinha,
son of Chandmani Sinha,
resident of Rajbari,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
29.Rajib Biswas,
son of late Pallab Biswas,
resident of Nayapara, Kalibari Road,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura
30.Sushmita Majumdar,
daughter of Parimal Majumdar,
resident of Near Buddha Mandir Trijunction,
Santirbazar, South Tripura
31.Omkar Debnath,
son of Ranjit Debnath,
resident of Manu Bazar,
Sabroom, South Tripura
32.Jhutan Laskar,
son of Raghunath Laskar,
resident of Joypur, Nalua,
Belonia, South Tripura
33.Subrata Debnath,
son of Nikunja Debnath,
resident of I.C.Nagar, Subhash Nagar,
Belonia, South Tripura
34.Sandipan Datta,
son of Swapan Datta,
resident of Sarashima,
Belonia, South Tripura
Page 4 of 26
35.Apsara Shil,
daughter of Narendra Kumar Shil,
resident of Nayapalli, Belonia, South Tripura
36.Rakhi Banik,
daughter of Nepal Banik,
resident of Srinagar, Sabroom, South Tripura
37.Momi Tribedi,
daughter of Ranjit Tribedi,
resident of Near PWD Road,
Panichauki Bajar, Kailashahar, Unakoti
38.Debayan Nandi,
son of Jadab Nandi,
resident of Boulapasha,
Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura
39.Susmita Kundu,
daughter of Ashutosh Kundu,
resident of Kajirgoan, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura
40.Papiya Deb,
daughter of late Durbadal Deb,
resident of Nidevi, Fatikroy,
Kumarghat, Unakoti, Tripura
41.Sujit Debnath,
son of late Ratan Chandra Debnath,
resident of East Howaibari, Teliamura, Khowai, Tripura
42.Laba Kumar Debnath,
son of Hiralal Debnath,
resident of West Ghilatali,
Kalyanpur, Khowai, Tripura
43.Tanushree Das,
daughter of Atul Krishna Das,
resident of North Chebri, Khowai, Tripura
44.Nirmal Debnath,
son of Nikunja Debnath,
resident of Cherma, Bachaibari, Khowai, Tripura
45.Nantu Das,
son of late Naresh Chandra Das,
resident of Gopalnagar (near Ramkrishna Ashram),
Kalyanpur, Khowai, Tripura
46.Samraj Singha,
son of Ruhini Singha,
resident of Gournagar, Samatal Padmabil,
Khowai, Tripura
47.Pranab Bhusan Roy,
son of Sathi Kumar Roy,
resident of Joynagar, Teliamura, Khowai, Tripura
Page 5 of 26
48.Rajat Roy,
son of Rathindra Roy,
resident of Gamaibari, Block Chowmani,
Teliamura, Khowai, Tripura
49.Suman Rudra Paul,
son of Sukumar Rudra Paul,
resident of North Mainama,
Longtharai Valley, Dhalai, Tripura
50.Moumita Sutradhar,
daughter of Nripendra Sutradhar,
resident of Chutosurma, Kamalpur, Dhalai
51.Mrinmoy Pal,
son of Mrinal Kanti Pal,
resident of Manik Bhandar, Kamalpur, Dhalai
52.Swapna Begam,
daughter of Sorab Uddin,
resident of Netaji Nagar,
Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura
53.Biswanath Das,
son of Birendra Chandra Das,
resident of Rangamatia, Khedabari,
Sonamura, Sepahijala, Tripura
54.Sarbari Deb,
daughter of late Sankar Chandra Deb,
resident of Raghunathpur,
Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura
55.Bulita Kalai,
daughter of late BasudebKalai,
resident of Twisarangchak Para,
Jampuijala, Sepahijala, Tripura
56.Asia Debbarma,
daughter of late Rabindra Debbarma,
resident of Bidhya Chandra Para, Birendranagar,
Radhapur, West Jirania Khola, Agartala, West Tripura
---- Petitioner(s)
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Tripura,
to be represented by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Elementary Education,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN:799 010
Page 6 of 26
2. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education,
Government of Tripura, Office Lane,
Shiksha Bhavan, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN: 799 001
3. Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura,
represented by its Member Secretary,
Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN: 799 001
4. National Council of Teacher Education,
(a Statutory body of Government of India),
represented by its Secretary,
having its office at Hanz Bhavan,
Bahadur Shah Zafarmarg, New Delhi-110002
5. Union of India,
represented by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India,
Department of School Education & Literacy,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
---- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Dey, Advocate General Ms. A. Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. B. Majumder, ASGI.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment and Order : 23.03.2022
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel and Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned Page 7 of 26 counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents No.4 & 5. [02] 57 petitioners who are CTET-I and CTET-II passed have by means of this common writ petition urged this court for issuing direction on the respondents to consider them for selection in the post of Under Graduate Teacher [class-I-class-V] and Graduate Teacher [class-v-class-VIII] at par with the State TET passed candidates. They have further urged to grant them age relaxation wherever necessary as few writ petitioners have crossed the maximum age of recruitment. According to the petitioners, since they are CTET passed they are eligible to be appointed as the Under Graduate and the Graduate Teachers. But the respondents hitherto are not responding to their representation for considering them for appointment to Under Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers in the government schools of Tripura.
[03] The petitioners have indisputably passed the Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) in the years 2019-2022 and 2021. The Central Board of Education, Delhi conducted the CTET and thereafter issued the pass certificate to the petitioners. In para-3, the petitioners have formed a table showing their year of passing and the marks they secured in the said CTET. The said table may be reproduced for purpose of reference:
Page 8 of 26
Table as referred in the immediate preceding passage.
Sl. Name of the PAPER 1 Year PAPER 2 Year
No. Petitioners
Qualified Qualified
(Score out (Score out of
of 150) 150)
1. Rajib Debnath 114 2021
2. Rinku Bhowmik 93 2019
3. Biki Debnath 105 2021
4. Tamajit Das 97 2019 97 2019
5. Barnali Das 96 2019 99 2019
6. Kallol Kanti Das 104 2019
7. Rajesh Sen 96 2021
8. Chiranjit Sutradhar 101 2021
9. Pankaj Das 95 2021
10. Dipanjali Mazumder 97 2021
11. Rahul Deb 100 2019
12. Diya Gupta 93 2021
13. Moumita Saha 90 2019
14. Kishore Sutradhar 96 2019
15. Babu Dey 92 2019
16. Ramu Debnath 90 2021
17. Prasanta Debnath 98 2021 93 2021
18. Abdul Matin 110 2019 109 2019
19. Kartic Chandra Saha 107 2019
20. Manidipa Bhowmik 97 2021
21. Satyajit Chakraborty 100 2021 99 2021
22. Ananya Dhar 93 2019 95 2019
23. Priyatosh Debnath 98 2021 97 2021
24. Biman Paul 90 2021 97 2021
25. Nayan Mani Deb 94 2021 100 2021
26. Priyanka Sinha 95 2021 94 2021
27. Muhit Chandra Nath 120 2019
28. Sudeep Sinha 92 2019
29. Rajib Biswas 102 2019
Page 9 of 26
30. Sushmita Majumder 98 2021 92 2019
31. Omkar Debnath 104 2021 92 2021
32. Jhutan Laskar 94 2019 110 2019
33. Subrata Debnath 95 2021
34. Sandipan Datta 92 2021
35. Apsara Shil 97 2021
36. Rakhi Banik 105 2019
37. Momi Tribedi 112 2019 92 2019
38. Debayan Nandi 110 2021 104 2021
39. Susmita Kundu 92 2021
40. Papiya Deb 97 2021
41. Sujit Debnath 91 2019 94 2019
42. Laba Kumar Debnath 91 2021 98 2019
43. Tanushree Das 100 2021
44. Nirmal Debnath 97 2021
45. Nantu Das 86 2021
46. Samraj Singha 99 2019
47. Pranab Bhusan Roy 95 2019
48. Rajat Roy 106 2019
49. Suman Rudra Paul 107 2021 106 2021
50. Moumita Sutradhar 115 2021
51. Mrinmoy Pal 98 2019
52. Swapna Begam 101 2021 95 2021
53. Biswanath Das 93 2021
54. Sarbari Deb 106 2019
55. Bulita Kalai 91 2021
56. Asia Debbarma 95 2019
[04] In support of those facts and figures as appearing in the
said table, the petitioners have enclosed their mark sheets of the CTET [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. It has been also asserted by the petitioners that the petitioners No.1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27, 33, Page 10 of 26 34, 39, 43, 50, 53 and 54 are CTET-I passed candidates and as such they are eligible for appointment the post of Under Graduate Teacher. The petitioners No.2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 28, 29, 35, 36, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 55 and 56 are CTET-II passed candidates whereas the petitioners No.4, 5, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 49 and 52 are CTET-I and CTET-II passed candidates and as such they are eligible for the post of Under Graduate Teachers (Class I-V) and Graduate Teacher (Class V-VIII). Section-23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 provides for appointment. Section-23 of the said Act inter alia provides that any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. [05] There is no dispute that National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) is the academic authority for the purpose of Section-23 of the said Act. NCTE by their notification dated 23.08.2010 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] prescribed the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers in exercise of powers as provided by Section-23(1) of RTE Act, 2009. In clause-1b, the minimum qualification for teachers for class-I to V in the elementary education system has been prescribed. It has been provided further that a candidate is required to pass the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE for that purpose. For purpose of Page 11 of 26 reference, the provision of Clause-1b of the minimum qualification as prescribed by NCTE by the notification dated 23.08.2010 is reproduced hereunder:
"1(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 ti time in this regard.
or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.ELEd) or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/BSc.Ed. or BA.Ed/BSc.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.
In other words, the statutory provision provided for a qualification in the TET to be conducted by the appropriate government."
[06] The appropriate government as appearing in the said notification has also been defined in Section-2(a) of the RTE Act, 2009. The appropriate government means, in relation to a school established, owned or controlled by the Central Government, or the administrator of the Union territory, having no legislature, the Central Government and in relation to a school, other than the school referred to in sub clause (i), established within the territory of- (A) a State, the State Government (B)a Union territory having legislature, the Government of that Union Territory.
Page 12 of 26[07] By a communication dated 11.02.2021 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition], the Member Secretary, NCTE had apprised that one of the essential qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher in any of the schools referred to Clause-(n) of Section-2 of the RTE Act, is that, he/she has passed TET which is conducted by the appropriate government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE. The said guidelines enumerates that a person will be considered TET qualified only when he will pass scoring 60%. TET-passed candidates thereafter will be considered for appointment in the school established and controlled by the appropriate government within the meaning of Section-2a of the RTE Act. It may further be clarified that on the basis of the result of TET conducted by the Central Government the appointment of the teachers can only be made in the schools of the Central Government and the Union Territories not having the legislature. Similarly, TET- conducted by the State Government will be relevant for appointment of teachers in the schools established and controlled by the State Government and not in any other schools. Similarly, Union Territories (UTs) which have the legislature may conduct TET and the result thereof will be relevant for appointment of teachers in the schools established by UTs. TET has to be conducted once in every year by the appropriate government. Again, by a notification dated 05.04.2010, it has been prescribed by NCTE that for eligibility for appearing in TET the minimum percentage of marks in graduation or post graduation or Page 13 of 26 in B.Ed shall be not less than 50%. But that will not apply to the candidates who have taken admission in the courses of bachelor of education and bachelor of elementary education prior to 29.07.2011. It has been shown in the table [as reproduced] that all the petitioners have passed CTET in the years 2019-2020, when no TET was conducted in the State of Tripura for pandemic. According to the petitioners, in the State of Tripura, there are 1205 posts (UR-418, SC- 75, ST-579) of Graduate Teachers are lying vacant at present. Similarly, 1379 posts (UR-601, SC-169, ST-502, PH-70, ESM-37) Under Graduate Teachers are lying vacant. Since there had been no TET in the years 2019-2020, the petitioners could not appear in the State TET. In the year 2020, Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) invited an application by the notification dated 27.11.2020 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] for selection of 1725 posts (UR-819, SC-268, ST-531, PH-70, ESM-37) of Under Graduate Teachers and 2116 posts (UR-1005, SC-329, SC-646, PH-88, ESM-48) of Graduate Teachers. In the notification it was clearly spelt out that only those candidates who have passed TET Paper-I/ TET Paper-II having other requisite qualifications will be eligible for the post of under Graduate or Graduate Teacher.
[08] According to the petitioners, they have been excluded from consideration for appointment to Under Graduate and Grade teachers on untenable ground that since they are CTET passed candidates they are not eligible. The petitioners have quite succinctly Page 14 of 26 asserted that no intelligible differentia can be made between the candidates who have passed CTET and TTET as all such candidates cannot be divided into different classes, there is hardly any distinction between the test conducted by the Central Government and the State Government. In this regards, the petitioners have referred to the guidelines Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as circulated by the letter dated 11.02.2011 wherein it has been provided that in the case the State Govt./UT having legislature does not conduct TET, CTET-passed candidates will be considered as eligible for schools under the State or local authority of the State. Guidelines also provides that the appropriate government should conduct TET at least once a year. It has been categorically asserted that the petitioners have been arbitrarily excluded from the recruitment process as initiated by the advertisement dated 27.11.2020. As consequence thereof, some of the writ petitioners may become age barred when the next exercise for filling up vacancies in the posts of UGTs/GTs will be taken up. The petitioners are not responsible for such situation. Thus, the petitioners have contended that to undo the injustice meted out to them, the petitioners shall be given age relaxation whereever is required so that they can be considered in the minimum next exercise for recruitment of Under Graduate and Graduate Teachers. According to the petitioners there were vacancies of 6422 posts of Under Graduate Teachers and 1047 posts of Graduate Teachers as on 27.05.2017 [see para-23 of the writ petition]. In para-24, the petitioners have further Page 15 of 26 asserted that TRBT has appointed 145 Graduate Teachers and 174 Under Graduate Teachers. Thus, 7582 posts are still vacant in the category of Graduate and Under Graduate Teachers. [09] The petitioners have asserted that by the notification dated 04.01.2019 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] Central Government in exercise of their powers conferred by sub-section-2 of Section-23 of RTE Act, 2009 granted relaxation to the State of Tripura in respect of minimum teachers' qualification norms notified by the NCTE on 23.08.2010 (supra). However, the petitioners have not stated how such relaxation can benefit the petitioners in achieving the reliefs as sought in the writ petition. According to the petitioners, failure to fill up the vacant posts in the schools under the Government of Tripura has created an alarming state of affairs depriving the students from of getting the proper education.
[10] The petitioners have failed to evoke positive response for their recruitment as Under Graduate/Graduate Teachers by filing several representations on 01.02.2020, 17.04.2021 and 23.04.2021 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition]. The petitioners, in support of their contention, have stated that CTET has been accepted for purpose of recruitment. They have cited a few examples from other states like Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and UP etc. In the employment notification dated 27.02.2020 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition] the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has categorically mentioned as follows: Page 16 of 26
"The intending candidates who have cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) only having all other requisite qualification may apply online through the official website of DEE, Assam, i.e. https://dee.assam.gov.in from the Midnight of 1st March, 2020 to Midnight of 4th March, 2020."
[11] Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner of School Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had published one advertisement dated 19.08.2020 [Annexure-11 to the writ petition] where it has been categorically stated that the candidates who have passed APTET/CTET-II may apply for the post of teachers in primary and upper primary schools. In the selection process, in the State of UP [see Annexure-13 to the writ petition], the candidates who have passed UPTET or CTET and having other requisite qualifications were considered for selection in the post of Graduate Teachers. Even the State of Jharkhand has allowed the person having CTET. The advertisement as regards acceptance of CTET is at Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Thus, the petitioners have submitted that their exclusion from consideration for appointment to the post of Under Graduate/ Graduate Teacher is grossly unreasonable and untenable as arbitrary. [12] The respondents No.1, 2 & 3 have filed the reply and stated that NCTE was also approached as regards whether the Government of Tripura can appoint the CTET passed candidate as Under Graduate/Post Graduate Teacher. In this regard, a reference has been made from a letter dated 15.03.2021 written by the Director, Elementary Education, Government of Tripura. The said letter has been produced before this court and the same has been Page 17 of 26 taken in the records without any objection from the petitioner. It has been stated in the said letter as follows:
"Recently, few petitions have been received from C-TET qualified candidates to consider their candidature for the posts of Under Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher at Elementary Level in the State Government managed Schools along with the T-TET qualified candidates of the State.
In consideration of the existing scarcity of Teachers in the state and keeping in view the accorded affiliation by CBSE for 20 (Twenty) State Government Schools, the Department is interested to explore further about the feasibility of consideration of the prayers received from the C-TET qualified candidates.
In this regard, in addition to that prescribed in sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of section 2 of the RTE Act, I would like to request you to kindly consider for providing guidance regarding the admissibility C-TET qualified candidates for appointment in the State Managed Schools."
[13] In this respect, in para-8 of their reply, the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 have stated that NCTE by its communication dated 07.07.2021 has advised inter alia that the authorities in the Department of Elementary Education, Tripura are to refer and follow the NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2021. As already explained, the State of Tripura having already decided and acted upon the decision for holding the State TET (T-TET), there is no question to transgress the statutorily fixed zone of consideration. Consideration is restricted to the T-TET passed candidates as far as the selection process of recruitment of Elementary Teachers (Class I to VIII) is concerned. However, Government of Tripura has taken a conscious policy decision to conduct the State TET (T-TET) so as to exclude C-TET as statutory consequence. This policy decision is guided by the larger public interest and adopted in exercise of statutory option provided by law. Thus, the respondents have stoutly opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Those respondents have also explained that for serious Page 18 of 26 pandemic situation TET could not be conducted for two successive years (2019 and 2020). That apart, the principal argument that has been advanced in their reply in opposing the prayers of the writ petition is that unless the academic authority (National Council for Teachers Education) relaxed the norms, the State Government cannot depart from the rigid norms as framed by the academic authority. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed in this writ petition.
[14] The respondents No.4 & 5 represented by Mr. B. Majumder, learned ASGI have not filed any reply but Mr. Majumder, learned ASGI has submitted that the petitioners cannot be considered for recruitment in the schools established and controlled by the Government of Tripura. But they can be considered for appointment under schools established by the Central Government. As such, they may not be granted the relief as prayed for.
[15] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has referred a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Binor Karmakar and Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors. (the judgment dated 03.02.2021 delivered in Writ Appeal No.24 of 2021). In that judgment, the Gauhati High Court having relied on the doctrine of proportionality has observed that the said doctrine as grounded in the rule of law requires regularity, predictability and certainty in the government dealings with the public and the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in Page 19 of 26 the procedural and substantive matters. Thereafter, it has been observed as follows:
"There was a predictability which had given rise to a legitimate expectation, considering that the action of the State was grounded in law as the law provides that the State Government can appoint Central TET candidates in a given contingency. In other words, it was not a mere fancy of these candidates. True, in 2019 the State chose to do its own TET and it is also true that the State can make Central TET eligible only if it chooses not to hold its own TET examination. But in all fairness, and as the learned senior counsel for the writ appellants Mr. Mahanta would submit, State's action would have been justified had it come with a notice forewarning, that henceforth Central TET candidates will not be considered. There was no such notice in 2019 when State TET was held after a gap of seven years. On the contrary, the decision not to allow the Central TET candidates from taking part in this recruitment process was announce only on 11-09-2020. Further, when it chose to do its recruitment for the year 2020 again in that year, there is no State TET examination. In other words, a Central TET qualified candidate, who had all long been held to be eligible in this examination were definitely caught unaware with the advertisement of the State dated 11.09.2020, where they were left out."
[Emphasis added] [16] It has been further observed that the action of the State is wrong when that is judged from the yardstick and from the principles of legitimate expectation. It is also wrong when we evaluated it from doctrine of proportionality. The reasons given in its high level meeting dated 01.09.2020 for excluding the Central TET candidate is that the State has enough candidates from State TET. That may be so, but this is not good enough reason to exclude the Central TET qualified candidates. It is hit by the doctrine of proportionality. As far as the other reasons given by the State that there are Central TET candidates who do not have proper understanding of Assamese or other languages (such as Bengali or Bodo) that could have been a good reason but Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners/writ appellants has apprised this Page 20 of 26 Court that is hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation and proportionality. It would have been a good reason from the state that the Central TET candidates who do not have proper understanding of Assamese or other languages. But is has been also apprised to the court that the Central TET is inclusive of the language test, which is either Assamese or Bodo or Bengali, which are languages applicable in the State of Assam. Thus an inference has been drawn that if that was not the case, the State Government would have been at liberty to evaluate such candidates (Central TET candidates) to see whether they have enough language proficiency or not, to be teachers in the elementary schools. Keeping them out altogether from the recruitment process particularly for the recruitment drive which is under reference, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation and proportionality. Thus, the action of the State of Assam has been interfered with by the Gauhati High Court and the Government of Assam has been directed to consider CTET-qualified candidates along with ATET candidates, subject to fulfilment of the other prescribed norms by NCTE. [17] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has also relied on a decision of the apex court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and Others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 595 wherein one of the questions which was examined by the apex court is that whether NCTE guidelines fixing the minimum qualifications is arbitrary and unreasonable. Ancillary to that question Page 21 of 26 the other question which was considered along with is whether the marks obtained in TET examination is the sole criteria for filling up of the vacancies. Apparently, those questions are far remote but a reference has been made in the said judgment to one clarification dated 02.09.2016 issued by NCTE in response to a question under Right to Information Act, 2005. The response was as follows:
"1. CTET/TET is an examination to qualify to become eligible for appointment as a teacher from Classes I to VIII.
2. There is no binding on State/Central Government to select the candidate as a teacher based on TET marks. TET is just eligibility for the appointment of teachers."
Thus, the apex court has upheld the view that the qualification prescribed by NCTE as regards weightage to be given vis- a-vis the marks secured is not mandatory. The inference that has been drawn in Shiv Kumar Patthak (supra) may not have any relevance as no adjudication is called for as regards the equivalence of CTET and TET conducted respectively by the Central Government and the State Government. CTET and TET are conducted observing the directives of NCTE.
[18] Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General has quite unambiguously stated that the State Government was never averse to explore the possibility of bringing the candidates like the petitioners, who have passed the CTET for consideration but the norms as regards the minimum qualification as laid down by the academic authority, NCTE cannot be avoided by a State Government, inasmuch as Section-23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Page 22 of 26 Act, 2009 (RTE Act for short) has clearly spelt out that whatever the academic authority would by notification declare as the eligibility for appointment as a Teacher will be binding. The Central Government may relax the minimum qualification as required for appointment as the Teacher but the said relaxation will not exceed five years from the date as would be notified by NCTE. Thus, the State Government is restricted by the norms as declared by the academic authority. [19] NCTE framed the guidelines for conducting Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) where it has been categorically provided that the appropriate government should conduct a TET at least once in every year and the validity period of the TET qualified certificate for appointment will be declared by the appropriate government, subject to maximum of seven years. But there will be no restriction on the number of attempts a person can take for acquiring a TET Certificate. A person who has qualified TET may also appear again for improving his/her score. From that provision of the guidelines, it appears that the CTET certificate that has been obtained by the petitioners was still valid in terms of the said guidelines [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. Even the respondents have not raised any objection in this regard.
[20] The fact that has prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition is that their CTET-certificate has not been considered by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura for selection to Page 23 of 26 the post under Elementary Education Directorate. The facts which are not in dispute in this proceeding are as follows:
(i) The petitioners have cleared the Central Teachers Eligibility Test (CTET) in the years 2019-2020.
(ii) The petitioners were not considered by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) for selection to the posts under Elementary Education Directorate, pursuant to the notification dated 27.11.2020 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] and
(iii) All the petitioners have the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Teachers under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Tripura.
It has also not been contested that Clause-X(b)(ii) of the said guidelines has provided that TET conducted by the State Government/Union Territory Legislature shall apply to the appointment of teacher at the elementary level (Classes I- VIII).
[21] The State Government does not have any strong inhibition in considering the CTET qualified candidates for appointment of teachers under the Directorate of Elementary Education, as is evident from the communication dated 15.03.2021. But from the records as produced it appears that by the communication dated 07.07.2022, NCTE has reasserted the guidelines dated 11.02.2011 where it has been categorically stated that the Teachers Eligibility Test Page 24 of 26 (TET) will be conducted by the appropriate government. There is no straight way rejection. The rationale behind introducing TET is to ensure standards which are devised as benchmark of teachers' quality in the recruitment process. The detailed procedure on how to conduct the TET has been provided in the guidelines. In the said guidelines, under heading Applicability, it has been provided as follows:
"10
(a) TET conducted by the Central Government shall apply to all schools referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the RTE Act.
(b) TET conducted by a State Government/UT with legislature shall apply to:
(i)a school of the State Government/UT with legislature and local authority referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act; and
(ii)a school referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act in that State/UT.
A school at (i) and (ii) may also consider eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET Certificate awarded by another State/UT with legislature. In case a State Government/UT with legislature decides not to conduct a TET, a school at (i) and (ii) in that State/UT would consider the TET conducted by the Central Government.
(c) A school referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act may exercise the option of considering either the TET conducted by the Central Government or the TET conducted by the State Government/UT with legislature."
[22] From a reading of the said para-10 on Applicability, it is clear that the interchangeability is a flexible framework. It has been provided that the result of the TET conducted by the Central Government or by the other State or UT can be considered, but under certain conditionalities. It has been clearly provided by the guidelines (see para-10 of Applicability) that (i) for a school of the State Governments/UTs with legislature and local authorities referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2 of the RTE Act, the candidate who have obtained the TET certificate from another State/UT with Page 25 of 26 legislature can be considered for recruitment under the conditionalities as prescribed. Thus, a question why the TET certificate awarded by the Central Government cannot be considered by a school as referred in sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of Section-2 of the RTE Act. The rationality for rejection is absolutely fudged and such distinction appears unintelligible. However, for attending to local conditions for imparting quality education, the State Government or the UT with legislature, is situated in a better position to regulate the method of examination or recognition within the broader framework as provided by NCTE. But that does not mean that the CTET-qualified candidates can be absolutely barred. Such regulation ought to have been couched with fair amount of latitude. The State Government ought to have been given the discretion to allow a scope to consider the CTET qualified candidates for recruitment as Teacher under Directorate of Elementary Education. Their refusal, as contended, is not justifiable. The guidelines cannot be a Euclid formula. It must have the flexibility. [23] Thus, the respondents are directed to allow the writ petitioners and others CTET qualified candidates who passed the test during the years 2019 and 2020 when the State Government did not conduct TET at all, to be considered for recruitment as Teachers under the Directorate of Elementary Education in Tripura. It is needless to point out that they shall be considered till the validity of CTET- certificate, along with TET candidates and for that purpose even no standardization of the result is required. It is again needless to say Page 26 of 26 that CTET-qualified candidates are to conform to the educational and other qualifications as required for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Under Graduate and Graduate) under the Directorate of Elementary Education. It is further observed that those petitioners who crossed the maximum age limit after 27.11.2020 may be considered for age relaxation once, but such observation will remain effective or in force till the next notification is made by TRBT. It is made absolutely clear that as the Academic Authority, National Council of Teachers Education, is the party in this proceeding, no formal exemption would be required to be obtained from them for the above purpose. As the relief is restricted for the candidates who passed CTET during the years 2019 and 2020, the State shall apprise all concerned that in future only TTET will be considered for recruitment of teachers under the Directorate of Elementary Education.
In terms thereof, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The records as produced by Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel be returned forthwith.
JUDGE Moumita