HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.P.(C) No.1404 of 2017

Sri Jayanta Choudhury,

son of Sri Swadesh Krishna Choudhury,
resident of Kunjaban Colony,
P.O. Abhoynagar, Mahadeb Bari Road,
District: West Tripura, Agartala,
PIN: 799 005

----Petitioner (s)
Versus

1. The State of Tripura,

represented by the Secretary,
to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Higher Education,
P.O. Agartala, District: Tripura (W)

2. Tripura Public Service Commission,

represented by Chairman,
Akhaura Road, Agartala,
Tripura, PIN: 799 001,
District: West Tripura

3. The Secretary,
of Tripura Public Service Commission,
Akhaura Road, Agartala,
Tripura, PIN: 799 001,
District: West Tripura

----Respondents

For Petitioner (s) : Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Datta, Adv.

Date of Hearing : 23.03.2018

Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 29.06.2018

Whether fit for

Reporting : YES
 Page 2 of 20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Judgment & Order

In terms of the advertisement No.05/2016 [Annexure-

1 to the writ petition] issued by the Tripura Public Service

Commission (the TPSC in short), the petitioner had applied

for the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level Technical Institutions

in Tripura, Group-A Gazetted under the Education (Higher)

Department, Government of Tripura in the scale of pay of

Rs.15,600-39,100/- with AGP Rs.5,400/- per month.

02. By the said advertisement applications were

invited from the eligible candidates having the educational

qualifications for filling up of 65 posts of Lecturer, diploma

level in various disciplines. For purpose of reference, the

various discipline/subject-wise vacancy and vacancies

allocated for reserved category candidates have been shown

in a table in the advertisement. The said table is reproduced

hereunder:

Sl. Name of the Subject/Discipline Vacancy in the discipline Total

No as per 100 point roster
SC ST UR
a b c d e f
1. Civil Engineering 02 04 07 13
2. Mechanical Engineering 02 03 05 10
3. Electronics 01 04 06 11
& Telecommunication Engineering
4. Electrical Engineering 02 02 05 09
5. Computer Science Technology - 01 02 03
6. Automobile Engineering - 01 01 02
7. Architect Engineering - 01 01 02
8. Food processing Technology - 01 01 02
9. Fashion Technology - 01 01 02
10. Mathematics 01 01 02 04
11. Physics - 01 01 02
12. Chemistry - 01 01 02
13. English - 01 - 01
14. Commerce - 01 - 01
Total: 08 23 34 65
 Page 3 of 20

03. On scrutiny of the records the petitioner was

found eligible for the said post and he was asked to appear

in the screening test for direct recruitment to the post of

Lecturer, Group-A Gazetted, Diploma Level in reference to

Advertisement No.05/2016, Item No.02 in the UR category.

Accordingly the petitioner appeared in the said screening

test held on 18.07.2017, 20.07.2017 and 21.07.2017 for

recruitment for the said post of Lecturer, Diploma Level

technical institutions in Tripura. By the notification dated

12.10.2017 the TPSC published the result and the petitioner

had come out successful in the said screening test. Later on

the petitioner was asked by a call letter dated 21.10.2017

[Annexure-5 to the writ petition] to appear in the interview-

cum-personality test on 16.11.2017 at the office of the

TPSC with all original documents namely pass certificate/

marksheets of educational qualifications, experience

certificate if any, no objection certificate from the present

employer if required. There are facts beyond dispute.

04. When the petitioner came across the

memorandum under No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016-

1629 dated 30.03.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition]

published in the official website of the Tripura Public Service

Commission he became apprehensive and filed the writ

 Page 4 of 20

petition. For purpose of further reference, the entire text of

the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 is extracted hereunder:

“In supersession of the earlier memos/Notifications, the

Commission has decided to follow, henceforth, the
following principles for provisional recommendation of
candidates.

1. In case of Scheduled Examination,

recommendation is to be made as per provision in
the Service/Recruitment Rules.

2. For Non-Scheduled Examination personality test for

100 marks is divided in to two parts.

1. Academic performance 50 marks *

2. Viva voce Interview 50 marks **

* Academic Performance Indicator (API) Academic

performance of candidates will be assessed on the
basis of marks obtained by the candidate in
Boards/Universities up to a minimum qualification
and experience (where ever required),

** In viva voce/interview, 25 marks will be given by

subject experts and remaining 25 marks will be
given by all the board members of the viva voce
test except SC & ST representative present in the
board on the following of parameters:

i. Knowledge in the concerned field

ii. Analytical power,

iii. Professional attitude,

iv. Communication skill,

v. General Knowledge & Current Affairs etc.

vi. Emotional attitude etc.

3. For Non-scheduled Examinations,

Recommendation:

(A) In case of recruitment to certain post(s) by

Personality Test only, the merit list is to be
prepared on the basis of marks awarded by
the Interview Board & API and
recommendation will be made on the basis
of merit list subject to availability of
vacancy.

(B) In case of recruitment through

Examination/Screening Test followed by
Personality Test, the recommendation is to
be made on the basis of merit list being
prepared by adding the marks obtained in
Examination/Screening Test to marks
obtained in the Personality Test.
 Page 5 of 20

4. For Non-Scheduled Examination, where the

selection is to be made on the performance of the
personality test only, qualifying marks in the total
of the personality test is 50 for UR and 40 for
reserved category (SC/ST/PH/Ex-Serviceman)
candidates. The candidate who does not qualify in
the Personality Test will not be considered for
recommendation.

5. There will be no qualifying marks in the personality

test where any screening test or examination is
held before personality test.

6. In the list of recommendation, merit position of

candidates securing equal marks will be finalized
as per their seniority or age. The same procedure
is to be followed for preparing waiting list, if there
be any.

Further provided that in the list of

recommendation, merit position of candidates
securing equal marks in aggregate and also of the
same age, will be decided on the basis of
percentage of marks obtained in the minimum
educational qualification prescribed in Recruitment
Rules/Service Rules.

7. Ranks of the candidates are not prepared for the

candidates beyond the recommendation list and
waiting list (if there be any),

8. In case any difficulty arises while applying cut-off

marks for Non-Scheduled Examination, the
Commission after due consideration of facts and
circumstances may make change, before
Interview/Personality Test, in the cut-off marks
after recording reason in details for doing so.

9. These rules/principles are however subject to

further modification/review by the Commission
from time to time as and when required.”

05. The recruitment was being made by the mode for

non-scheduled examinations and as a result during the

interview-cum-personality test, for the academic

performance 50% marks was provided and the other 50%

was provided for the performance in the Viva-voce/

interview-cum-personality test. In the said memorandum

dated 30.03.2017 it has been further highlighted that in

case of the scheduled examination, recommendation

followed by the personality test, the recommendation be

 Page 6 of 20

made on the result by adding the marks obtained in

Examination/Screening Test to the marks obtained in the

personality test. It has been further provided that for non-

scheduled examination where selection is to be made on the

performance of the personality test only, qualifying marks

for the personality test shall be 50 for UR and 40 for the

reserved category (SC/ST/PH/Ex-serviceman) candidates.

The candidates who do not qualify in the personality test

will be not considered for recommendation.

06. The petitioner by filing this petition has

challenged the sudden change or departure as made from

the earlier practice after the Adv. No.05/2016 was issued,

but before the screening test was held on 18.07.2017,

20.07.2017 and 21.07.2017. According to the petitioner, for

the written examination (Screening Test) marks were

distributed in the following manner:

(i) General Knowledge & Current Affairs - 40

(ii) Subject Matters (Respective discipline) – 60

Total = 100

07. This pattern was duly notified in the website of

the TPSC having reference to Adv. No.05/2016 in the form,

as available at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. For purpose

of reference, the entire text of the said notification

[Annexure-6 to the writ petition] is extracted hereunder:

 Page 7 of 20

TRIPURA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SCHEME OF SCREENING TEST FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE

POSTS OF LECTURER, DIPLOMA LEVEL TECHNICAL
INSTITUTIONS IN TRIPURA, GROUP-A GAZETTED UNDER
EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF TRIPURA

Ref:- Advertisement No.05/2016 (Item No-02)

Name of the Paper & Pattern of Question for all

subject/Discipline

1. Name of the Paper :- General Ability Test

2. Pattern of Question :- 100% MCQ type question

Name of Subject Distribution of Marks

1. General Knowledge & Current Affairs - 40

2. Subject Matters (Respective discipline) – 60

Total = 100

#
Note:-i) a) There will be four alternatives for the
answer to every question. For each question
for which a wrong answer has been given by
the candidate, one-third of the marks
assigned to that question will be deducted
as penalty.
b) If a candidate gives more than one answer,
it will be treated as a Wrong Answer even if
one of the given answers happens to be
correct and there will be same penalty as
above to that question.
c) If a question is left blank, i.e. no answer is
given by the candidate, there will be no
penalty for that question.
ii) The answers are to be encoded in the OMR
Answer Sheet by Black Ball Point Pen only.

Sd/ illegible
JOINT SECRETARY
TRIPURA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

08. The petitioner only came to know about the

memorandum dated 30.07.2017 when he appeared for the

interview-cum-personality test. By the memorandum

No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016 dated 15.02.2016 issued

by the respondent No.2, for the scheduled examination or

the non-scheduled examination the following mode was

 Page 8 of 20

notified in respect of the personality test/ interview/ viva-

voce test etc.

i) In case of Non-Scheduled Examination

comprising Interview/Personality Test only, all

eligible candidates will be called for

Interview/Personality Test, if not otherwise

decided by the Commission.

ii) a) The Commission follows the guideline

articulated in the Service Rules or

Recruitment Rules for calling a candidate to

appear in the Interview-cum-Personality

Test/Personality Test/ Viva-Voce in case of

specified Scheduled Examination.

b) In the absence of any such guideline in the

Service Rules or Recruitment Rules,

Candidates are called for Personality

Test/Interview on the basis of the result of

the Written Examination conducted in the

form of Combined Competitive Examination

OR Scheduled Examination OR Screening

Test if so decided by the Commission (in

case of Non-Scheduled Examination), in the

following ratio, subject to attaining of

qualifying marks (cut-off marks) if and

where applicable.
 Page 9 of 20

09. The memorandum under

No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016 dated 15.02.2016

[Annexure-8 to the writ petition] provides for screening test

in the non-scheduled examination. The said memorandum

has further provided the number of candidates to be called

for interview-cum-personality test against vacancies. Since

these are not in controversy, this court is not going to dilate

further of that procedure. The clause which is relevant in

the present context is the principle which is to be followed

for calling the candidates for personality

test/interview/Viva-voce/type test/shorthand writing

transcription test. First of all, if the candidates are not

extremely large and the candidates who are eligible

according to the requirement of the advertisement will be

called for interview-cum-personality test. Further, in

absence of any such guideline in the Service Rules or

Recruitment Rules, Candidates are called for Personality

Test/Interview on the basis of the result of the written

examination conducted in the form of Combined

Competitive Examination OR Scheduled Examination OR

Screening Test if so decided by the Commission (in case of

Non-Scheduled Examination), in the ratio as provided for

calling the candidates to the interview.

10. The petitioner has challenged that procedure and

urged this court to interfere in the said process by declaring

that the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 cannot be applied

 Page 10 of 20

in the said selection process and also for quashing the

memorandum No.F.9(40)/Con/Exam/TPSC/2016-1629

dated 30.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.2

[Annexure-7 to the writ petition] and directing the

respondents to reallocate of the percentage of the marks for

viva-voce test for the selection in the post of Lecturer,

Diploma Level, Technical Institutions, Government of

Tripura. It has been further urged that the respondents be

directed to conduct a fresh interview for the post of

Lecturer, Diploma Level, Technical Institution in terms of

the call letter dated 21.10.2017 by excluding assessment of

the Academic Performance Indicators (API) for selection to

the post of Lecturer, Diploma Level, Technical Institutions,

Government of Tripura.

11. The respondents No.2 and 3 by filing the reply

have categorically stated that allocation of 25% marks for

viva-voce test cannot be called as excessive and arbitrary.

The respondents have further stated that the TPSC has

decided to divide 100% marks for interview cum personality

test in several heads for different selection process in which

the Academic Performance Indicators derived from the

Educational testimonials would be added. The change in the

method was duly published in the official website before the

screening test was held. In this regard, the said

respondents have referred to the UGC regulation as notified

on 18.09.2010. In the clause-6.0.1, the UGC has

 Page 11 of 20

recommended that weightage to the academic performance

be provided and that would make the system more

transparent and credible:

“In order to make the system more credible, universities

may assess the ability for teaching and / or research
aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room
situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest
technology in teaching and research at the interview
stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct
recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection
committees are prescribed in these Regulations.”

The TPSC has adopted the said best practice in

their recruitment procedure so that the amount of

subjectivity can be regulated to the minimum level. They

have categorically stated that the writ petition is bereft of

any merit and it does not deserve further consideration by

this court.

12. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner has raised two prompt objections to question

the change in the process after the employment

advertisement was published viz. (i) after the selection

process has commenced such change is absolutely arbitrary

and seriously prejudicial to those who were appearing in the

process, and (ii) that the said process as sought to be

introduced by the memorandum dated 30.03.2017

[Annexure-7 to the writ petition] is fraught with

irreconcilable contradictions. As a result, there would be

possibility of injustice.

13. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel at the outset

has placed some documents from the website of the TPSC

 Page 12 of 20

viz. the notification under No.F.89(3)-TPSC/2007 dated

29.11.2007 which was according to Ms. S. Deb Gupta,

learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner was in force at

the time of issuing the advertisement. The said notification

dated 29.11.2007 provides that in the case of non-schedule

examination conducted by the TPSC, the final selection will

be made in order of merit on the basis of marks obtained by

candidates in aggregate adding the marks obtained in the

screening test when the selection process will be made on

the basis of screening test followed by interview. For

purpose of reference, the entire text of the said notification

is reproduced hereunder:

“In order to bring more transparency in selection process

and due to introduction of OMR system, it is decided by
the Commission that henceforth in case of non-scheduled
Examinations the final selection will be made in order of
merit on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate
in aggregate adding the marks obtained in the Screening
Test when the selection process will be made on the basis
of screening test followed by interview.
This is for information to all concerned.”

14. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has further

referred another notification under No.F.12(45-1)-

Web/TPSC/2015 dated 02.11.2015 by which the minimum

cut-off marks for interview has been declared. For purpose

of reference the said notification dated 02.11.2015 as relied

by Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel is extracted

hereunder:

“It is for information of all concerned that total marks

allotted for Interview/Personality Test is 100 for direct
recruitment to the posts through Non-Scheduled
Examination.
 Page 13 of 20

A candidate must have to secure the qualifying marks in

the interview [50(Fifty) marks for UR & 40(Forty) marks
for SC,ST,PH, Ex-Serviceman] to be considered for final
selection/recommendation.
The final selection/recommendation will be made in order
of merit on the basis of total marks obtained by the
candidates in the Screening Test and
Interview/Personality Test.
OR
On the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the
Interview/Personality Test where no such Screening Test
is conducted.”

15. According to Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel,

the notification dated 29.11.2017 and 02.11.2015 shall

govern the entire procedure of recruitment and as such

sudden change made by the memorandum dated

30.03.2017 is contrary to the fair action so far the

recruitment in the public office is concerned. In support of

that contention she has referred a few decisions of the apex

court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512. The apex court in

K. Manjusree (supra) has laid down the principle in the

following manner:

“33. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the

procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was
not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore,
extending the minimum marks prescribed for written
examination, to interviews, in the selection process is
impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of
minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have
no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the
selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks
both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe
minimum marks for written examination but not for
interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for
either written examination or interview. Where the rules
do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee
may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above.
But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe
minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the
commencement of selection process. If the selection
committee prescribed minimum marks only for the
written examination, before the commencement of
selection process, it cannot either during the selection
process or after the selection process, add an additional
requirement that the candidates should also secure
 Page 14 of 20

minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to

be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the
selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on
the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the
interview.”

16. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel having placed

reliance on K. Manjusree (supra) has contended that once

the recruitment process has commenced there cannot be

any change in the rules or the mode of recruitment. Such

change is bound to be illegal in view of K. Manjusree

(supra).

17. In Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi

etc. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2103, which report has been

relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the apex

court has held that sudden change in the method after the

recruitment process commenced was not permissible at all

after the written test was conducted. The relevant passage

from the report is gainfully reproduced hereunder:

“16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the

respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree
(Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar
Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well
as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6
SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as
decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger
Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is
laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the
authority making the rules regulating the selection to
prescribe the minimum marks both for written
examination and interview. The question whether
introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for
interview after the entire selection process was
completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of
this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned
Counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of
K.Manjusree (Supra) the Court noticed the decisions in
(1) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC
141; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985)
3 SCC 721; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of
Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646, and has thereafter laid down
the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the
facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of
the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in
K.Manjusree (Supra) can neither be regarded as
 Page 15 of 20

Judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the

respondent for referring the matter to the Larger Bench
for reconsidering the said decision.”

18. Finally Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner has referred a decision of the

apex court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn.

And Others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Others

reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 for the similar ratio. It has

been laid down in the said report as under:

“6. We have held that the Circular Orders dated

24.6.1996 will have no relevance or application to the
selections in question, undertaken pursuant to the
advertisement issued on 20.9.1995. It has also been
noticed by us that the Circular Order dated 4.4.1995, on
the face of it, will apply only in cases where the selection
has to be finalized on the basis of any Written
Examination and Interview. There being no Written
Examination for selection of Drivers for appointment, the
selection process has to be on the basis of only Circular
Orders dated 21.8.1980 and 23.1.1995. These aspects
were left to lie in a nebulous state, leaving much for
assumptions on either side to be possible. This should
have been averted by the Corporation, by proper and
appropriate action at the crucial and relevant point of
time before setting the selection process in motion. It is
high time that the Board takes up this for consideration
resolve it by an appropriate decision. For such lapses,
neither the candidates, who got selected and appointed,
nor the Writ Petitioners, who lost in the selection, could
be entirely blamed. The Writ Petitioners also have not
chosen either to allege or substantiate any malafides or
bias against any member of the Selection Committee,
except making a grievance that within the course of the
time available on a single day about 322 applicants could
not have properly subjected to interview for assessment
of merits or assignment of marks for selection. The
learned counsel for the appellants would seek to place
reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in
Sardara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1991)4
SCC 555] and Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.
[(1995)3 SCC 486] to contend that such contentions are
not sufficient to warrant interference with the selections
made.”

19. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel has raised an

ancillary point stating that the petitioner has passed from

the North East Regional Institute of Science and Technology

where the marks are given very conservatively in

comparison to the other institute and as such when the API

 Page 16 of 20

would be considered the petitioner would eminently suffer

prejudice as the TPSC does not follow any procedure of

standardization.

20. Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

TPSC-respondents has submitted that the objection of the

petitioner is structured on the hyper technicality inasmuch

as the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 was issued before

the screening test was held and as such there cannot be

any objection hovering around prejudice to the petitioner

and other candidates. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further

submitted that the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 which

has its roots in the practice introduced by the University

Grants Commission (the UGC in short) for better objectivity

and for determining suitability in a more transparent

manner. The statement of the petitioner that he could know

about this change only on the day of interview-cum-

personality test should not be believed inasmuch as it is

expected that when someone applied for participating any

competitive examination to be conducted by the TPSC, he

would keep an eye on the official website of the TPSC for

getting updated information about the examination. In this

regard, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has drawn the attention

of this court to the clause-10 of the advertisement which

clearly states as follows:

“For further details, read the “Instructions to

candidates”, in the prescribed Application Form and also
 Page 17 of 20

please visit the Website of the Commission-

http://www.tpsc.gov.in.”

21. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has further submitted that for the interim order

passed by this court on 10.11.2017 the selection process

could not be drawn to its logical end. However, Mr. Datta,

learned counsel has fairly submitted that the TPSC has filed

an application being IA No.01 of 2017 for vacating the

interim order and in pursuance thereto the hearing has been

expedited by this court. In addition, Mr. Datta, learned

counsel has referred two decisions of the apex court on

estoppels by conduct. In Ramesh Chandra Shah and

Others vs. Anil Joshi and Others reported in AIR 2013

SC 1613, the apex court having visited the precedent has

observed that it is settled law that a person who consciously

takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter,

turn around cannot question the method of selection and its

outcome.

22. In V. Lavanya and Others vs. State of Tamil

Nadu reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322, the apex court had

occasion to observe as under:

“37. The appellants have also challenged G.O.Ms. 71,

which was issued by the respondents pursuant to the
decision of the Single Judge of the High Court. As already
noted before, the Single Judge while declining the
challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 252 and G.O.Ms. No. 25 had set
aside the grading system adopted by the Government
vide G.O.Ms. No. 252. The Single Judge observed that the
grading system adopted in G.O.Ms. No. 252 lacks
rationality as it places candidates with the difference of 1
to 9 percentage in the same basket. Accordingly, vide
G.O.Ms.No. 71 the Government came up with the grading
methodology as indicated supra in para No 10. The
appellants have not only challenged the new grading
system introduced by G.O. No. 71; but they have also
 Page 18 of 20

challenged the weightage of marks of 40% earmarked for

academic performance. It is their contention that the
Government has blindly accepted the recommendation of
Single Judge without application of mind.

40. The appellants have maintained that while

prescribing the marks for performance in Higher
Secondary Examination, the respondents have failed to
take into account different Education Boards (CBSE, ICSE,
State Boards etc.) conducting Higher Secondary
Examination and difference in their marks awarding
patterns. As also, the appellants have alleged that
respondents failed to consider different streams of
education while formulating the grading pattern. It is
submitted that unless and until the respondents take
note of difference in marking scheme of Education
boards, as also the marking scheme of different streams
such as Arts, Science etc. a valid grading system cannot
be formulated. Equivalence of academic qualifications is a
matter for experts and courts normally do not interfere
with the decisions of the Government based on the
recommendations of the experts (vide University of
Mysore v. CD Govinda Rao (1964) 4 SCR 575 and Mohd.
Sujat Ali v. Union of India(1975) 3 SCC 76). We hold that
it is the prerogative of State-Authorities to formulate a
system whereby weightage marks is decided with
reference to actual marks secured by each candidate. In
the present case, as no arbitrariness is proved on the part
of the respondents, in formulating the grading system we
cannot interfere with the same. We cannot be expected to
go into every minute technicalities of decision taken by
the experts and perform the job of the respondent-State.
Moreover, the High Court has also noted that submission
of learned Advocate General that almost all the
appellants have completed their High Secondary
examination from the State Boards.”

In view of the above observation, this court

would leave the matter of standardization of marks, in view

of variant systems in the examinations, by giving weightage

etc to the prerogative of the executive.

23. When Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for

the TPSC-respondents was asked to clarify how the clause-

3(B) of the memorandum dated 30.03.2017 can be adjusted

with Clause-2, he had no immediate answer and perhaps he

cannot have any answer at all. From a reading of the

memorandum dated 30.03.2017, it surfaces that clause-2

provides that for non-scheduled examination the personality

test for 100 marks to be divided into two parts namely

 Page 19 of 20

academic performance and viva-voce/interview and for each

part, the marks which has been allocated is 50% but clause-

3(B) postulates that in case of recruitment through

examination/screening test followed by the personality test

the recommendation is to be made on the basis of the merit

list being prepared by adding the marks obtained in

examination/screening test to marks obtained in the

personality test. If we go by clause-2 obviously clause-3(B)

is excluded. However, clause-3(A) is harmonious to clause-2

of the said memorandum dated 30.03.2017 as it provides

that in case of recruitment to certain post(s) by personality

test only, the merit list is to be prepared on the basis of

marks awarded by the Interview Board & API and

recommendation will be made on the basis of the merit list

subject to availability of vacancy. According to this court

this memorandum not only set up such incompatible clause

for that it becomes non-scheduled examination not

workable for reasons as stated. Thus, unless the said

memorandum is duly amended the former practice has to

be followed and the former practice has been engrafted in

the notification dated 29.11.2007. That apart, the apex

court in Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation

vs. Rajendra Mandve (supra) had similar occasion to

observe that ‘the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that

criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities

 Page 20 of 20

concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has

commenced.’

24. In view of what has been observed and what has

been found from the records produced that the TPSC-

respondents followed the procedure as engrafted in clause-2

of the said memorandum dated 30.03.2017. They shall, as

consequence of the observation aobe, revisit their

recommendation by cancelling what they have made up and

thereafter shall make the necessary recommendation by

following the notification dated 29.11.2007 for the post of

Lecturer, Diploma Level in the Technical Institutions in

Tripura.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands

allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Return the records filed by the TPSC-respondents

under a sealed cover.

JUDGE

Moumita