Farok Hossen vs Teachers Recruitment Board Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 122 Tri

Tripura High Court

Farok Hossen vs Teachers Recruitment Board Tripura on 30 January, 2026

                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
         I.A. No.02 of 2026 in WP(C) No.550 of 2025

1. Farok Hossen,
   S/O: Abdul Kalam,
   R/O Vill: Luddamura, P.O & P.S.: Jatrapur,
   Sonamura, Dist: Sepahijala, PIN: 799131,
   Age about: 32 years.
2. Ikbal Hossain,
   S/O: Julhas Uddin,
   R/O Vill: Panchnalia,
   P.O: Motinagar, P.S: Sonamura,
   Dist: Sepahijala, PIN: 799131,
   Aged avout 28 years approx.
                                                ---Applicant(s)
1. Rubal Debnath,
   S/O- Dilip Debnath,
   R/O- Belonia, Border Para,
   South Tripura, P.O & P.S - Belonia,
   PIN-799155, Aged About - 33.
2. Pintu Debnath,
   S/O- Maran Debnath,
   R/O- Bashpukur, Sepahijala,
   Tripura, P.O & P.S- Jatrapur,
   PIN- 799131, Aged About-33.
                                                ---Petitioner(s)

                            Versus


1. Teachers Recruitment Board Tripura,
   Represented by its Chairman, Shiksha Bhavan,
   Office lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
   PIN-799001.
2. The Member Secretary,
   Teachers Recruitment Board Tripura Shiksha Bhavan,
   Office lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
   PIN-799001.
3. The State of Tripura,
   Represented by the Secretary,
   Department of Youth Affairs & sports,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
   New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.- New Capital Complex,
   Agartala West Tripura, PIN-799010.
4. The Director,
   Department of Youth Affairs & sport,
   Government of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan, Office lane,
   Agartala, West Tripura, PIN- 799001.
                                   Page 2 of 6



  5. The Director,
     O/o The Directorate of Elementary Education,
     Shiksha Bhavan, Government of Tripura,
     Office lane, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001.

                                                      ----Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A. Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Order 30/01/2026

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.

                                                                  JUDGE




Amrita


AMRITA DEB     AMRITA DEB
               Date: 2026.01.30 17:53:56
               +05'30'