Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Rajib Debnath on 4 April, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WRIT APPEAL NO.99 OF 2022
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the
Principal Secretary, Department of Elementary Education,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
PS: New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin:799010.
2. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education,
Government of Tripura,
Office Lane, Shiksha Bhavan,
Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN: 799001,
3. Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura, represented by its
Member Secretary,
Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN:799001.
..... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
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-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,
Sepahijala.
5. Barnali Das,
daughter of Amaresh Das,
resident of Ward no 47,
South Badarghat,
Agartala, Sadar.
Page 1 of 16
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.
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.
Page 2 of 16
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,
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 3 of 16
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.
48. Rajat Roy,
son of Rathindra Roy,
resident of Gamaibari, Block Chowmani, Teliamura, Khowai, Tripura.
49. Suman Rudra Paul,
son of Sukumar Rudra Paul,
Page 4 of 16
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.
........Respondent(s)
57. 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.
58.Union of India, represented by the Joint Secretary to the Government of
India, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human
Resource Development , Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
.......Proforma Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Dey, Advocate General
Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Dy.SG
Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Date of hearing : 01/02/2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 04/04/2024
Whether fit for reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[
(Arindam Lodh, J.)
Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Mrs.
A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State. Also
heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit
Bhattacharjee and Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SG appearing for the
proforma-respondents.
2. The instant writ appeal has been filed by the appellants-State for
quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2022
passed by the learned Writ court in WP(C) No.539 of 2021 whereby and
whereunder the learned Writ court directed the appellants-State to consider
the writ petitioners, who have passed the Central Teachers Eligibility Test(C-
TET), for selection in the post of Under Graduate Teacher(Class-I to Class-
V) and Graduate Teacher(Class-V to Class-VIII) at par with the State TET
passed candidates and further to grant them age relaxation wherever
necessary as few respondents have already crossed the maximum age of
recruitment.
3. Shortly stated, the respondents/writ petitioners(here-in-after
referred to as the writ petitioner) have passed Central Teachers Eligibility
Test(here-in-after referred to as "C-TET") conducted by the Central Board of
Secondary Education, Delhi during the year 2019-2022 and 2021. They filed
a writ petition before the Writ court numbered as WP(C) No.539 0f 2021,
inter alia, stating that there were posts of Graduate and Under Graduate
Teachers lying vacant in the State of Tripura, but the State respondents did
not conduct its Teachers Eligibility Test(here-in-after referred to as TET)
examination viz. Tripura Teachers Eligibility Test(here-in-after referred to as
T-TET) and further that the Teachers' Recruitment Board, Tripura(here-in-
after referred to as TRBT) vide Notification dated 27.11.2020 invited
applications for selection of 1725 and 2116 vacant posts respectively for
Under Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher, limiting the zone of
consideration only to T-TET passed candidates, and completely excluding
the C-TET passed candidates. It was the contention of the writ petitioners in
that writ petition that the exclusion of the C-TET passed candidates was
illegal and that there are at least 12,222 vacant posts of Graduate and Under
Graduate Teachers where C-TET passed candidates could be considered for
selection along with the T-TET passed candidates. The writ petitioners,
therefore, prayed for directing the appellants-State respondents(here-in-after
referred to as "the appellants") to consider the C-TET passed candidates
eligible for selection in the posts of Under Graduate Teacher and Graduate
Teacher at par with State T-TET passed candidates.
4. The appellants by filing counter affidavit before the learned
Writ court had stated that since 2015 onwards T-TET examinations were
being conducted by the appellants every year and in the 2019, it was held in
the month of October. Furthermore, in the year 2018, T-TET examination
was conducted twice. It was further stated that only in the year 2020, T-TET
examination could not be conducted due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic
situation. The appellants further stated that in terms of the Recruitment Rules
for appointment to the post of elementary teachers[Under Graduate
Teacher(Class I to V) and Graduate Teacher(Class VI to VIII)], the
candidates, who have passed T-TET(Paper-I) and T-TET(Paper-II)
respectively, are eligible to apply for the respective posts, as and when the
State Government notifies for such recruitment. But, the candidates, who
have passed the C-TET, are not eligible to apply for the posts Elementary
Teachers of the State of Tripura managed and owned by the Government of
Tripura under the present guidelines issued by the NCTE. The NCTE vide its
communication dated 07.07.2021, inter alia, advised the authorities of the
Department of Elementary Education, Tripura to refer and follow the NCTE
guidelines dated 11.02.2011. The State of Tripura have already decided and
acted upon the decision in holding State TET(T-TET). So, there remains no
scope for the State of Tripura to transgress the statutorily fixed zone of
consideration, beyond the T-TET passed candidates in the selection process
of recruitment of Elementary Teachers(Class I to VIII Standard) in the State
of Tripura. The State Government have taken a conscious policy decision in
this respect by way of opting to conduct TET(T-TET) so as to exclude C-
TET, as a natural statutory consequence. The policy decision is guided by
larger public interest and adopted in exercise of statutory option provided by
the law to the State of Tripura.
5. The appellants in their counter affidavit further stated that in
terms of Section 23(1) of Right of Children to free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009(here-in-after referred to as RTE Act, 2010), the Central
Government have been conferred with the rights to exclusively authorize any
academic authority to lay down the minimum qualification for appointment
of teachers at elementary level, i.e. Class-I to Class-VIII standard and in
exercise of the statutory power the Government of India in the Ministry of
Human Resources Development(MHRD) issued notification dated
31.03.2010, inter alia, authorizing the National Council for Teacher
Education(NCTE) as the academic authority to lay down minimum
qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as an elementary
teacher. In Clause 1(b), the minimum qualification for teachers to be
appointed for Class-I to Class-V in the elementary education system has
been prescribed. It has been provided that a candidate is required to pass the
Teacher Eligibility Test(TET) to be conducted by the appropriate
Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for that
purpose. For the purpose of reference, the provisions of Clause 1(b) of the
minimum qualification, as prescribed by the NCTE vide notification dated
23.08.2010 are reproduced here-under, for convenience:
"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 to time in this regard.
Or
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 years
Bachelor in Elementary Education (B. ELED)
Or
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 years
BA/B.SC.ED. or BA.ED/BSC.ED.
B.A/B.SC with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.ED (Special Education)
And
Passed 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."
6. Vide a communication dated 11.02.2011, the NCTE has
circulated guidelines for conducting TET examination. In Clause 10(a) of the
said guidelines, it is provided that TET conducted by the Central
Government would apply to all schools referred to in Section 2(a)(i), of
NCTE Act,1993, meaning thereby schools established, owned or controlled
by the Central Government or the Administrator of the Union Territory
having no legislature. The Statutory mandate for C-TET is confined and
limited to schools established and owned by the Central Government or
those Union Territories. The schools established, owned and controlled or
managed by the State Government is outside the purview of C-TET. Clause
10(b)(ii) of the NCTE guidelines further affirmatively provides that in case a
State Government or Union Territory with legislature, decides not to
conduct a TET, a school established, owned and controlled or managed by
the State Government or Union Territory with legislature would consider the
C-TET conducted by the Central Government.
7. In the context of the case it would be relevant to extract Clause
10 of the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education (for short,
NCTE):
"10. Applicability
(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 uthority
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."
8. Sub-Section (a) and Sub-Section (b) of Section 10 of the NCTE
guidelines makes it very clear that TET, which is conducted by Central
Government will apply to only Government Schools which are covered
under Clause 2(a)(i) of the Act, i.e. "a School established, owned or
controlled by the Central Government, or the administrator of the Union
Territory, not having a legislature, and TET conducted by the State
Government will apply to a School of the State Government in that State."
The "Schools" which are referred to in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (n) of
Section 2 of the Act are as under:-
"(i) a school established, owned or controlled by the appropriate
Government or a local authority;
(ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet whole or part of its
expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority;
(iii) a school belonging to specified category; and
(iv) an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its
expenses from the appropriate government or the local authority."
9. On perusal of the aforesaid provision what crystallises is that
Central-TET makes a candidate eligible for appointment in a school, which
is run by the Central Government or Union Territory having no legislature,
and State-TET makes a candidate eligible for appointment in the schools,
which are run by the State or which come under the jurisdiction of the State.
However, there is an exception under this provision that a candidate who has
obtained Central-TET will also be considered for appointment in a school
under the State Government, if the State Government "decides not to
conduct the TET". Under the said provisions, let us now evaluate the factual
situation of the disputes raised before us.
10. Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
appellants has submitted that the Education(School) Department,
Government of Tripura had constituted Teachers' Recruitment Board,
Tripura(for short TRBT) in the year 2015 vide notification dated 11.03.2015
for the purpose of conducting State TET, commonly referred to as T-TET for
selection of teachers at the elementary level(Class I to Class VIII). It has
been further submitted that T-TET is being conducted regularly every year
since 2015 and in reply to the contention of the writ petitioners that the T-
TET examination was not held in the year 2019, 2020 and 2021, it is
submitted that it would be revealed from the advertisement dated 13.09.2019
issued vide Ref.No.F.4(1-1)/COE/TRBT/2016/170 and advertisement dated
10.02.2021 vide Ref.No.F.4(1-11)/COE/TTET/ TRBT/2020/19 issued by the
TRBT that the T-TET examination were rightly conducted by the
Education(School) Department, Government of Tripura. Moreover, in the
year 2018, T-TET examination was held twice. It was only in the year 2020,
the T-TET could not be held due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic
situation.
11. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners heavily relied upon the decision of the Gauhati High Court in
Binod Karmakar & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors.[Writ Appeal No.24
of 2021, decided on 03.02.2021]. We have perused the judgment where 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 certainity in the government dealings with the
public and the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in the
procedural and substantive matters. Thereafter, it has been observed thus:
"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".
12. The facts of the case in hand is quite distinguishable from the
facts of the case in Binod Karmakar(supra). In the present case,
Government of Tripura with legislature conducts T-TET examination every
year since 2015 and only in the year 2020, T-TET examination could not be
conducted due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation. But, in
Binod Karmakar(supra), the State of Assam had not conducted Assam
Teachers' Eligibility Test(for short , "A-TET") examination since 2013 i.e.
for a period of seven years. The Division Bench of Gauhati High Court while
deciding the above mentioned case had observed at para 50 thus:
"50. We must state that the learned Single Judge in its judgment & Order
dated 18.12.2020 has discussed in detail the principle of legitimate
expectation. Finally, the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion
that the test of legitimate expectation will not be applicable to the
facts of the given case as the provisions of law only provided that a
Central TET candidate can be appointed only in a school under the
Central Government or under Union Territory, not having a legislature.
We are, however, of the opinion that this is not the correct position.
54. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and
balancing the equities, we direct that the recruitment process initiated by
the department on the basis of advertisement dated 11.09.2020 be now
processed in two phases. In the first phase, appointment orders for filling
up 3025 out of 3941 vacancies may be issued from amongst State TET
qualified candidates. The appointment orders in respect of the remaining
916 vacancies be issued to the eligible candidates in the second phase
after considering the candidatures of the 916 writ petitioners which
includes the present appellants, who are Central TET qualified candidates.
It is, however, made clear that the appointment of the writ
petitioners/appellants would be subject to the condition that appellants
have the State TET qualification and other guidelines prescribed by NCTE
and they fulfil all eligibility norms prescribed by the advertisement notice
dated 11.09.2020, including necessary proficiency in the required
language."
13. In the case of Binod Karmakar(supra), it was held that the
Assam Government did not conduct A-TET examination for long period of 7
years. But, here in the case at hand, the learned Single Bench had failed to
appreciate the fact that the State of Tripura has been conducting T-TET
examinations since 2015, and it was only in the year 2020 T-TET
examination could not be conducted due to the prevailing COVID-19
pandemic situation.
14. On meticulous reading of the NCTE guidelines, we are of the
opinion that a State-TET qualified candidate normally is qualified and/or
eligible for the schools, which are run by the State or under the
jurisdiction of that State, wherefrom he had completed his State-TET.
Central-TET qualified candidates, under normal circumstances, are only
eligible for appointment in schools, which are run by the Central
Government or under the Union Territories, which do not have a legislature.
But, the Notification dated 11.02.2011 made by the NCTE, creates an
exception where a Central TET qualified candidate will also be eligible for
appointment in State run schools, in case, the State decides not to hold its
own TET.
15. In the instant case, learned Single Judge in its judgment and
order dated 23.03.2022 held that clause 10(b)(ii) National Council for
Teacher Education (for short "NCTE") is interchangeable under certain
contingencies. So, learned Writ court also held that though T-TET and C-
TET qualified candidates are interchangeable but there are certain
contingencies. Here in our opinion, learned Single Judge fell short of
properly analysing the contingencies. In the opinion of this court,
contingencies would occur only when firstly, if a State Government/Union
Territory has not implemented the NCTE guidelines as narrated in the
preceding paragraphs; secondly, the State Government does not have
necessary legislature to conduct State TET; and, thirdly, a State Government
or Union Territory with legislature decides not to conduct a TET, as we find
a situation enumerated in the case of Binod Karmakar(supra). However, the
learned Writ court did not appreciate the fact the State Government has been
conducting T-TET examination from 2015 since its implementation of the
NCTE guidelines and it was only in the year 2020 T-TET examination could
not be conducted due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation.
Clause 10(b) of the NCTE guidelines clearly stated that 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.
16. In the instant case, the situation is totally different and free from
the contingencies referred to here-in-above. Here, the Government of Tripura
has its own legislature to conduct TET examination in each and every year
and has never decided not to conduct TET. Further, there is no instance that
the Government of Tripura has not conducted TET for an indefinite or
unreasonable period.
17. In our opinion, the court in its own wisdom should not direct the
State Government to open two parallel avenues in disregard to the statutory
guidelines issued by the NCTE for recruitment of teachers at elementary
level.
18. For the reasons stated and discussed here-in-above, we find
merit in the State appeal and accordingly the instant writ appeal stands
allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2022, passed in
WP(C) No.539 of 2021 by learned Single Judge stand set aside and quashed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Snigdha
SAIKAT Digitally signed
by SAIKAT KAR
KAR Date: 2024.04.06
16:19:48 +05'30'
