High Court Finds TRBT’s Grounds for Rejecting Special Educator Candidate Unsustainable, Directs Appointment Recommendation Within 3 Months
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, October 2, 2026
The Tripura High Court has strongly questioned the manner in which the Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura (TRBT) dealt with the candidature of Sri Keshab Das, observing that the recruitment authority’s stated grounds for rejecting him were contradictory, unsupported by adequate documentary evidence and legally unsustainable.
In its judgment dated September 30, 2026, in W.P.(C) No. 530 of 2025, Sri Keshab Das vs. State of Tripura & Others, Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to recommend Das for appointment as Special Educator against an SC post within three months.
The judgment was delivered after hearing Advocate Arijit Bhaumik, assisted by Advocate Ishpa Chakma, for the petitioner, and Senior Government Advocate Pradyumna Gautam for the State respondents.
High Court records multiple irregularities in TRBT’s stand
The case arose after Das, a resident of Garurband, Sonamura, Sepahijala district, was denied consideration for the Special Educator post during document verification, despite having been allowed to participate in the recruitment examination.
TRBT had issued its recruitment notification on February 10, 2025, for 112 Special Educator posts, including 30 posts reserved for SC candidates. Das, an SC candidate, applied, was issued an admit card and appeared in the Selection Test for Special Educator (STSE)-2025, securing 89 marks out of 150.
The Court found that the subsequent rejection of his candidature raised serious legal issues.
1. TRBT relied on a qualification requirement not stated in its own advertisement
One of the most important observations of the High Court was that the respondents attempted to rely upon NCTE guidelines concerning qualification requirements, but the TRBT's recruitment notification itself did not state that those particular NCTE guidelines would govern the recruitment.
The Court specifically observed that the notification prescribed 50% marks either in Graduation or Post-Graduation, together with B.Ed. Special Education from an RCI-recognised institution and RCI registration. The notification also provided up to 5% relaxation for SC/ST/PwD candidates.
Justice Palit noted that, despite relying upon NCTE guidelines in its defence, the respondents could not demonstrate that those guidelines had been incorporated into the recruitment notification in the manner claimed.
The Court recorded that the notification “nowhere” mentioned that NCTE guidelines would be applied in the recruitment and instead specifically prescribed the RCI-related requirements.
2. TRBT’s arguments regarding the petitioner’s marks were found contradictory
Das had obtained 33.57% in his earlier graduation, but subsequently obtained another graduation degree from Rabindranath Tagore University with 68.80% marks.
The Court noted that the respondents had not disputed the subsequent degree. Nevertheless, their counter-affidavit relied on the earlier 33.57% marks to question his eligibility.
The High Court observed that the positions taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit and the submissions made by the Senior Government Advocate were contradictory.
3. TRBT’s objection regarding RCI registration rejected by High Court.
The second major ground cited against Das was that he did not possess a valid RCI registration certificate on the last date for submitting the application.
The Court examined the registration documents and found that Das had originally been registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India from March 5, 2020, for five years. Importantly, he had applied for renewal on February 21, 2025, before the expiry of that registration.
Although the renewed certificate reflected a renewal date of June 30, 2025, the Court found that the original registration and the timely application for renewal could not simply be disregarded.
The Court therefore held that the respondents' contention that Das did not have a valid RCI registration at the time of submitting his application “does not have any legal force.”
4. TRBT accepted his application, issued admit card and allowed him to sit for examination
The High Court also attached significance to the conduct of the recruitment process itself.
Despite having access to Das's academic and professional credentials, TRBT accepted his application, issued him an admit card and allowed him to sit for the Special Educator examination.
He secured 89 out of 150 marks.
The Court observed that TRBT had permitted him to participate after knowing his academic career, including his two graduation programmes and B.Ed. Special Education qualification.
5. 2015 RCI regulation could not be applied retrospectively to his course.
Another important issue concerned the RCI regulation published in May 2015.
The respondents relied on the regulation to support their position regarding the qualification required for the B.Ed. Special Education course. However, the Court noted that Das had undergone the B.Ed. Special Education course during the 2014-2016 academic session.
Justice Palit found that the 2015 regulation relied upon by the respondents was not applicable to the petitioner in the manner claimed, since the relevant course had commenced before the regulation came into effect.
6. Court found inadequate documentary defence from respondents.
The High Court went further and observed that the respondents, despite disputing Das's claim, had failed to produce proper documentary evidence sufficient to establish their defence.
The judgment records that the respondents' counter-affidavit contained inconsistent positions: at one stage they relied upon the lack of requisite marks, while at another they relied upon the alleged absence of valid RCI registration.
The Court also noted that nothing substantive had been produced to disprove the petitioner's subsequent graduation degree or the validity of his RCI registration history.
Court records denial as arbitrary
The judgment records the petitioner's contention that, despite qualifying in the selection process, his candidature had been “arbitrarily denied” by TRBT.
After considering the rival submissions and documents, the High Court concluded that Das had established a case for relief.
The Court did not merely send the matter back to TRBT for another consideration. Instead, it directed the respondents to recommend Das's name for appointment as Special Educator against an SC post under the Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura.
Final order
The operative portion of the judgment directs the respondents to recommend Sri Keshab Das for appointment as Special Educator against an SC post within three months from September 30, 2026. The writ petition was consequently allowed and disposed of.
more news...