Tripura High Court : Recruitment Board Estopped From Changing Final Answer Key

The Tripura High Court has held that the Teachers' Recruitment Board (TRBT) cannot depart from its own final answer key once published, as doing so violates the principle of estoppel . The Court directed the Board to award one additional mark to a T-TET 2024 candidate who had relied on the earlier answer key.

A Candidate’s One-Mark Dilemma

Rupak Majumder appeared for T-TET 2024 Paper-I and scored 89 marks, one short of the 90-mark qualifying threshold. The dispute centred on Question No. 9, which asked the meaning of the “Anarchic theory of intelligence.” Majumder answered “Group factor theory,” the same answer that TRBT had accepted as correct in its final answer key for T-TET 2022. Despite this, the Board refused to award him the mark, contending that the correct answer was “None of the above.”

The Board’s Defense and the Petitioner’s Reliance

TRBT argued that Majumder did not challenge the tentative answer key when objections were invited and that a three-member Expert Committee had subsequently determined the correct answer. The Board maintained that it had followed due process and that the decision of the expert committee was binding.

Majumder, however, contended that TRBT was estopped from taking a different stand. He pointed out that the same question appeared in T-TET 2022, where the final answer key listed “Group factor theory” as correct. Selections were made based on that key, and no notification was ever issued correcting the answer. The petitioner relied on the High Court’s earlier judgment in WP(C) No. 699 of 2025, which had addressed the identical disputed question.

Court Finds Arbitrariness and Estoppel

Justice Biswajit Palit noted that TRBT had itself accepted the petitioner’s chosen answer as correct in 2022 and had made selections on that basis. Without any subsequent correction or notification, the Board could not now adopt a contrary position. The Court found that the Board’s action was arbitrary and impermissible in law.

In a key observation, the Court stated: “It appears that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and not permissible in the eye of law because by their action the respondents are estopped from taking any further plea that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition because the TRBT at this stage cannot take any different step deviating from their earlier statement made in the final answer keys.”

The Court also noted that the Board failed to demonstrate how the Expert Committee arrived at its conclusion, and that the earlier judgment in WP(C) No. 699 of 2025 squarely covered the present case.

Relief Granted

Allowing the writ petition , the Court directed TRBT to award one additional mark to the petitioner in the T-TET 2024 Paper-I result within two months and to declare his result afresh. The decision reinforces the principle that recruitment authorities cannot change established answer keys without adequate justification, particularly when candidates have relied on them in good faith .