HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA
IA No.01 of 2026
In WP(C) No.297 of 2026
1. Bodhipriya Saha,
D/o Kiriti Kumar Saha, R/o Ramnagar Road No. 3,
Agartala, West Tripura, P.S. & P.O. -Ramnagar,
PIN-799002, Age-28.
2. Alak Debnath,
S/o Late Lalit Mohan Debnath, R/o Shibnagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, P.S East Kotwali, P.O Agartala College,
PIN-799004, Age - 36.
3. Arghya Datta,
S/o Late Arun Kumar Datta, R/o-3/3 Ward 1,
Adarsha Para ICDS, Manu Bazar, South Tripura,
P.S & P.O-Manu Bazar, PIN-799143, Age-32.
4. Nilotpal Das,
S/o Ranjan Das, R/o Dhaleswar, Agartala,
West Tripura, P.S East Agartala, P.O - Dhaleswar,
PIN-799007, Age-29.
5. Raima Debbarma,
D/o - Biswa Debbarma, R/o - Alanga Para,
Hirapur, Sepahijhala, Tripura, P.S. Jampuijala,
PIN-799103, Age-26.
6. Shanta Saha,
D/o Satya Ranjan Saha,
R/o - Ward 29, Unnayan Sangha, Agartala,
West Tripura, P.S & P.O. A.D. Nagar, PIN-799003, Age- 26.
7. Risa Debbarma,
D/o Sukumar Debbarma, R/o Shridam Kobra Para,
Laxmi Pur, West Tripura, P.O. - Durga Nagar,
PIN-799035, Age-29.
8. Dipika Debnath,
D/o Haridhan Debnath, Dhaleswar,
Agartala, West Tripura, P.O. Dhaleswar,
PIN-799007, Age 38.
9. Imran Hossein,
S/o Abutaher Mia, Ranjit Nagar,
near Nivedita Club, P.O.: Ramnagar,
P.S.: West Agartala, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799002.
10. Dipankar Das,
S/o Shyamal Chandra Das, R/o Dhaleswar, Agartala,
West Tripura, P.O. Dhaleswar, PIN 799007, Age-26.
11. Bibek Sarkar,
S/o Niren Sarkar, R/o Saltilla Gram, Belonia,
P.S. & P.O. Belonia, District: South Tripura 799155.
---- Applicant(s)
Versus
 Page 2 of 14

1. The State of Tripura

(To be represented by the Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Tripura), New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799010.
2. Tripura Public Service Commission (TPSC)
(To be represented by the Secretary, TPSC), Akhaura Road, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN - 799001.
3. The Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission, Akhaura Road,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001.
4. The Controller of Examinations, Tripura Public Service Commission,
Akhaura Road, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN -799001.
----Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Tirtharaj Dhar, Adv.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. GA
Mr. Kundan Pandey, Adv.

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Order
01/05/2026

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman assisted

by Learned Counsel, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee is present on behalf of the

applicant-petitioners. Learned Addl. GA, Mr. Karnajit De is present on

behalf of the respondents-State and Learned Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey

is present on behalf of the respondents-TPSC.

2. The present applicant-petitioners have filed the connected writ

petition before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to

why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents to give marks to each of the Petitioners in
regard to the Questions Nos- 7, 29, 77, 80, 95 of
Question Booklet Series-B (corresponding to Question
Nos- 7, 71, 39, 42, 57 of Series A, Question Nos-7, 51, 99,
22, 37 of Series C & Question Nos- 7, 89, 57, 60, 75 of
Series D) of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment to
the Post of Junior Engineer, Grade-l, Civil Engineering,
2025.
 Page 3 of 14

ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to

why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents to republish the result of the Petitioners
after awarding marks to the Petitioners in regard to the
Questions Nos-7, 29, 77, 80, 95 of Question Booklet
Series-B (corresponding to Question Nos- 7, 71, 39, 42,
57 of Series A, Question Nos- 7, 51, 99, 22, 37 of Series C
& Question Nos- 7, 89, 57, 60, 75 of Series D) of
Preliminary Examination for Recruitment to the Post of
Junior Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering, 2025.

iii. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to

why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents to quash/cancel the impugned Notification,
dated, 12.03.2026, and issue fresh directions to the
Respondents to reconsider the disputed Questions with
proper reasoning and fairness, ensuring that the
Petitioners' results are revised and their future career
prospects, document verification, eligibility, etc. are not
affected.

iv. Issue Rule upon the Respondent to show cause as to

why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or
Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the
Respondents to quash/cancel the impugned Notification,
dated, 19.03.2026.

V. Pass an Interim Order directing the Respondents to

allow the Petitioners to participate in the Main
Examination for Recruitment to the Post of Junior
Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering, scheduled to be held
on 02.05.2026, in pursuance with the Advertisement,
dated, 13.02.2025.

vi. Make the rules absolute,

vii. Call for records,

viii. Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High

Court considered fit and proper.

And
For this act of kindness, the Petitioners are as in duty
bound shall ever pray.”

3. Along with the writ petition this interlocutory application is filed

by the applicant-petitioners for directing the respondents-TPSC to allow the

applicant-petitioners to appear in the Main Examination for recruitment to

the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering, scheduled to be

held on 02.05.2026 in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 13.02.2025.

4. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the

applicant-petitioners first of all drawn the attention of this Court to

 Page 4 of 14

Annexure-1 of the writ petition i.e. the Advertisement No.08/2025 by which

the respondents-TPSC called for online application for recruitment to the

post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I and Grade-II, Civil Engineering under

Rural Development Department, Govt. of Tripura. Referring the said

Annexure-1 to the writ petition, Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-

petitioners drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of

“selection process” which is as follows:

“Preliminary Examination (MCQ Type) carrying 100

marks. The Preliminary Examination is meant to serve as
a screening test only for the purpose of selection of
candidates for the Main Examination. The marks obtained
in this examination by the candidates will not be
considered for final selection. A limited number of
candidates, maximum 05(five) times of total posts
(category wise) will be selected merit wise on the basis
of the result of Preliminary Examination, subject to
securing minimum qualifying marks (40% for UR & 30%
for reserved category candidates). Only those candidates
who will be declared qualified at the Preliminary
Examination will be eligible for admission to the Main
Examination.”

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite the clear

stipulation that candidates securing 40% qualifying marks would be eligible

to appear in the Main Examination but, in the present case, the applicant-

petitioners were not called for to appear in the Main Examination scheduled

to be held tomorrow i.e. on 02.05.2026, even though they have secured

the qualifying marks.

Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this

Court to Annexure-12 of the writ petition i.e. the brief summary of the

result of Preliminary Examination for recruitment to the post of Junior

Engineer, Grade-I, Civil Engineering released by the respondents-TPSC

wherein in the third column, the qualifying cut-off marks are mentioned as

follows: 44 out of 100 for UR (Male), 40 for UR (Female), 40.75 for SC

(Male), 35 for SC (Female), 36.25 for ST (Male) and 33.75 for ST (Female).

It is submitted by Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners that

 Page 5 of 14

the said cut-off marks are contrary to and beyond the guidelines prescribed

under Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners further

drawn the attention of this Court to para Nos.19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of

the writ petition and submitted that the applicant-petitioners have

challenged the answers to the Question Nos.7, 29, 77, 80 and 95 of the

Question Booklet Series-B (corresponding to Question Nos. 7, 71, 39, 42

and 57 of Series A; Question Nos. 7, 51, 99, 22 and 37 of Series C; and

Question Nos. 7, 89, 57, 60 and 75 of Series D). The relevant portions of

the aforesaid paras are reproduced hereunder:

“20. That, in the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioners

herein challenge the aforesaid questions on the following
grounds: -

Question No-7 of Series-A (identically numbered in all

Series) The said question is extracted herein below: -

"Select the correct option which is closest to the opposite

in meaning of the underlined words in Question Nos. 7 to
8."
"7. He has penchant for writing satirical poems."

(A) dislike
(B) bias
(C) repulsion
(D) hatred

A. TPSC has declared the Option-A, i.e., 'dislike' is the

correct answer in the tentative and final answer keys.
B. That, so far Question No. 7 is concerned, the
Petitioners submit, that, Options A, C and D are all
correct answers, and Option A cannot be singled out as
the only correct answer.

*** *** ***

21. Question No-29 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-71 of

Series A, Q. No.-51 of Series-C & Q. No.- 89 of Series-D)

The said question is extracted herein below: -

"29. CBR is a measure of"

(A) Soil classification

(B) Soil strength

(C) Relative stiffness of paving material

 Page 6 of 14

(D) Shear strength under lateral confinement

A. TPSC has declared the Option-B, i.e., 'Soil Strength' as

the correct answer in the tentative as well as in the final
answer key.

B. That, so far Question No-29 is concerned, the

Petitioners submit, that, Options B and C are both correct
answers, and Option B cannot be singled out as the only
correct answer. As such the answer to the said question
is required to be declared star (*) and the Petitioners
required to be given 1 mark in respect to the said
question.

*** *** ***

22. Question No-77 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-39 of

Series A, Q. No.-99 of Series-C & Q. No.- 5 of Series-D)

The said question is extracted hereinbelow: -

"Given that scope of the construction work is well

defined with all its drawings specifications, quantities
and estimates, which one of the following types of
contract would be most preferred?"

(A) EPC contract

(B) Percentage rate contract
(C) Item rate contract
(D) Lump sum contract

A. TPSC has declared the Option-C, i.e., Item rate

contract' is the correct answer in the tentative answer
key as well as in the final answer key.

B. That, so far Question No-77 is concerned, the

Petitioners submit, that, the answer declared by the
TPSC, i.e., Option-(C) "Item rate contract," is wrong and
incorrect.

*** *** ***

23. Question No-80 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-42 of

Series A, Q. No.-22 of Series-C & Q. No. 60 of Series-D)

The said question is extracted herein below: -

"80. If the pressure on a clay layer increases slightly

from 'p' to „p + δp‟ and the void ratio decreases from e0
to e, then the co-efficient of compressibility is given by"

(A) e/p

(B) e0/δp

(C) e/δp

(D) e – e0/δp
 Page 7 of 14

A. TPSC has declared the Option-D, as the correct answer

in the tentative answer key as well as in the final answer
key.
B. That, so far Question No-80 is concerned, the
Petitioners submit, that, the answer declared by the
Respondent-Commission, i.e., Option-(D) “(e – e0)/ δp,”
is wrong, defective and inaccurate.

*** *** ***

24. Question No-95 of Series-B (similar to Q. No-57 of

Series A, Q. No.-37 of Series-C & Q. No.- 75 of Series-D)

The said question is extracted herein below: -

"95. pH value of dairy waste water is approximately"

(A) 6.2

(B) 7.2
(C) 8.2
(D) 5.2

A. TPSC has declared the Option-B, i.e., '7.2' as the

correct answer in the tentative answer key as well as in
the final answer key.

B. That, so far Question No-95 is concerned, the

Petitioners submit, that, B. That, so far as Question No.
95 of Series-B is concerned, the Petitioners submit that
the answer declared by the Respondent-Commission, i.e.,
Option-(B) "7.2," as the sole and only correct answer, is
wrong, inaccurate and defective……..

*** *** ***”

Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this

Court to para No.31 of the writ petition wherein the details of the marks

obtained by the applicant-petitioners are given. The relevant portion of

para No.31 is reproduced hereunder:

Sl. Name of Category Pass Marks/Qualifying Marks

No. Petitioners Marks Obtained

1. BODHIPRIYA UR 40 37.25
SAHA
2. ALAK DEBNATH UR 44 41.75
3. ARGHYA DATTA UR 44 43.25
4. NILOTPAL DAS SC 40.75 37.25
5. RAIMA ST 30.25 33.75
DEBBARMA
6. SHANTA SAHA UR 37.25 40
7. RISA ST 32.5 33.75
DEBBARMA
8. DIPIKA UR 39.25 40
DEBNATH
 Page 8 of 14

9. IMRAN UR 42.5 44
HOSSEIN
10. DIPANKAR DAS 36.75 36.75 40.75
11. BIBEK SARKAR 40.5 40.5 40.75

Referring those questions as mentioned in para Nos.20, 21, 22,

23 and 24 of the writ petition, Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-

petitioners submitted that if the grievances of the applicant-petitioners

could have been addressed by the respondents-TPSC in that case they

could have secured more than the cut-off marks as prescribed by the

respondents-TPSC. However, without considering the same, the

respondents-TPSC have acted arbitrarily in violation of the conditions laid

down in the advertisement, thereby depriving the applicant-petitioners

from appearing in the Main Examination scheduled to be held tomorrow.

So, Learned Senior Counsel urged for granting interim protection to the

applicant-petitioners to appear in the Main Examination and to direct the

respondents-TPSC to ensure that the candidature and eligibility of the

applicant-petitioners are not prejudiced and may be subject to the outcome

of the connected writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey appeared on behalf of the

respondents-TPSC and submitted that Learned Senior Counsel for the

applicant-petitioners has misinterpreted the selection procedure as

mentioned in the advertisement. Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey further

submitted a written note wherein it has been mentioned that for selection

of 34 posts under UR(Male) category, a total of 683 candidates appeared in

the Preliminary Examination, out of which 233 candidates secured the

qualifying marks i.e. 40 or above. It was further submitted that as per the

Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2022 (for short, Rules, 2022),

for one post, a maximum of five candidates may be called for Main Written

Examination i.e. in the ratio of 1:5 for each post. Accordingly, for 34 UR
 Page 9 of 14

(Male) posts, maximum 170(34 x5) candidates from the top could be called

for the Main Written Examination. Accordingly, TPSC prepared a merit list

for all candidates i.e. 683 candidates who appeared in the Preliminary

Examination and out of that first 170 candidates as per the merit list have

been called for Main Written Examination. Learned Counsel for the

respondents-TPSC submitted that although 233 candidates qualified

Preliminary Examination, but for 34 posts only top 170 candidates were

called for. Learned Counsel for the respondents-TPSC further submitted

that the applicant-petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 9 secured qualifying marks in the

Preliminary Examination but they are not eligible for sitting in the Main

Written Examination as they scored less than 44 marks.

In respect of UR (Female) candidates i.e. applicant-petitioner

Nos.1, 6 and 8, it is submitted that for selection of 19 posts of UR

(Female), 192 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination out of

which 59 candidates scored qualifying marks i.e. 40 or above and as per

aforesaid rules of 2022, for one post maximum five numbers of candidates

are to be called for. Accordingly, the TPSC prepared merit list for all the

candidates i.e. 192 candidates who appeared in the Preliminary

Examination and out of that, first 59 candidates who scored 40 marks or

above and qualified in the preliminary examination were called for. The

applicant-petitioner Nos.1, 6 and 8 did not secure qualifying marks i.e. 40

marks in the Preliminary Examination and as such, their names have not

been considered for Main Examination.

In respect of SC (Male) candidates i.e. applicant-petitioner

Nos.4,10 and 11, it is submitted that there are total 18 posts out of which 6

SC posts are reserved for Women and remaining 12 SC posts are for

SC(Male). For the selection of 12 posts of SC(Male) as many as 255

candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination out of which 151

 Page 10 of 14

candidates scored qualifying marks i.e. 30 or above. As per the said Rules

for 12 SC (Male) posts, maximum 60(12 x5) candidates from the top could

be called for sitting in the Main Written Examination. Accordingly, TPSC

prepared merit list for 255 candidates and out of that 60 candidates were

called for in the Main Examination. Although 151 candidates qualified the

Preliminary Examination but for 12 posts only top 60 candidates as per

merit list were called for sitting in the Main Examination. The applicant-

petitioner Nos.4, 10 and 11 although secured qualifying marks in the

Preliminary Examination but they were not eligible for sitting in the Main

Examination as last selected candidates who was qualified and selected for

Main Examination has obtained 40.75 marks. Since the applicant-petitioner

Nos.4, 10 and 11 did not secure marks within the top 60 candidates so

their names were not considered for appearing in the Main Written

Examination.

In respect of ST (Female) candidates i.e. applicant-petitioner

Nos.5 and 7, there are total 32 posts out of which 11 ST posts are reserved

for Women and 1 ST post is reserved for Ex-Servicemen and remaining 20

ST posts are for ST(Male). For the selection of 11 posts of ST(Female) as

many as 178 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination out of

which 80 candidates scored qualifying marks i.e. 30 or above. As per the

said Rules for 11 ST (Female) posts, maximum 55(11 x5) candidates from

the top may be called for sitting in the Main Written Examination.

Accordingly, TPSC prepared a merit list for all candidates i.e. 178

candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination and out of that

first 55 candidates as per the merit list have been called for Main Written

Examination. It is submitted that although 80 candidates qualified

Preliminary Examination but for 11 posts only top 55 candidates could be

called for. In the present case, even though the applicant-petitioner Nos.5
 Page 11 of 14

and 7 secured qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination but they are

not eligible for sitting in the Main Written Examination as the last selected

candidate who has qualified and selected for Main Examination has

obtained more than 33.75 marks. Since, the applicant-petitioner Nos.5 and

7 did not secure marks within the top 55 candidates, their names have not

been selected for sitting in the Main Examination.

In respect of answer keys, it is submitted by Learned Counsel

for the respondents-TPSC that the MCQs have been shuffled among the

04(four) different Booklet Series viz- A, B, C & D. After conducting the

Preliminary Examination, the Provisional Answer Key was published on

10.11.2025 and it was instructed to submit representation on the

provisional answer key within 07(seven) working days. In response to the

publication of the Provisional Answer Key in total 44 nos. of questions have

been challenged through Online Challenge Mechanism System [Part-I & II

for 5 (five) no. of questions for English & GK and Part-III for 39 (thirty-

nine) no. of questions for Engineering paper].

Learned Counsel further submitted that the Commission has

constituted 2 (two) Scrutiny Committee, 1 (one) Scrutiny Committee for

Part-I & II comprising 02 (two) Senior Faculty Members and another

Scrutiny Committee for Part-III comprising 04 (four) Senior Faculty

Members from the Civil Engineering Branch to review the claims of the

candidates. The meeting of the Scrutiny Committees was held on

12.12.2025 for finalization of Answer Keys of "General Studies &

Engineering Aptitude" for Civil Engineering and after threadbare analysis of

the claims of the candidates, the Committees submitted its

recommendations on 12.12.2025.

It is submitted that the allegation of the applicant-petitioners

against the question bearing No.7, 29, 77, 80 & 95 of Booklet Series-B
 Page 12 of 14

were challenged by the candidates during the submission of challenge

through Online Challenge Mechanism System. The said five questions along

with remaining 39 questions were placed before the Scrutiny Committees.

Relying upon the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committees, the final

answer keys for the Paper "General Studies & Engineering Aptitude" have

been finalized. Thereafter, the Commission published the Final Answer key

of Preliminary Examination on 17.12.2025. On the basis of said final

answer keys, result of Preliminary Examination was published and vide

Notification dated 12.03.2026 it was mentioned that the Main Examination

of the provisionally qualified candidates is scheduled to be held on and from

02.05.2026 for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade-I

(Degree), Civil Engineering under Rural Development Department, Govt. of

Tripura. Learned Counsel submitted that the allegation of the applicant-

petitioners in respect of the question nos.7, 29, 77, 80 & 95 of Question

Booklet Series-B is baseless and not maintainable.

6. Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey relied upon one judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 wherein in para

Nos.30.3, 30.4, 30.5 and 31, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

“30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or

scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best
left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the

key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the

examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or

compassion does not play any role in the matter of
directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The
entire examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are disappointed
 Page 13 of 14

or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been

caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court
has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the
suspect or offending question.”
Learned Counsel further relied upon another judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Uttar Pradesh Public Service

Commission, through it Chairman & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr.,

reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, wherein in para Nos.13 and 14, Hon’ble

the Apex Court observed as under:

“13. As far as the present case is concerned even before

publishing the first list of key answers the Commission
had got the key answers moderated by two expert
committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26
member committee was constituted to verify the
objections and after this exercise the Committee
recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2
questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed
that these committees consisted of experts in various
subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges
cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters.
Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers
are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot
enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of
the arguments given by both sides and then come to the
conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more
correct.
14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions
needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court
itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also
supported by certain text books. When there are
conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the
opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be
experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise
great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction
to upset the opinion of the experts.”

Relying upon the same, Learned Counsel submitted that there

is no merit in the petition filed by the applicant-petitioners and as such, the

same needs to be dismissed with cost.

7. I have given anxious hearing of both the sides and also gone

through the recruitment notification and the contention raised by the

applicant-petitioners in the writ petition. I have also gone through the

written note submitted by the respondents-TPSC.

 Page 14 of 14

8. After going through the relevant papers, prima facie, it appears

that the stand of TPSC is contrary to the guidelines issued in the

recruitment notification regarding securing of marks. Furthermore, in

respect of Questions Nos.7, 29, 77, 80 and 95 of Question Booklet Series-

B, there is some basis on the submissions made by Learned Senior Counsel

for the applicant-petitioners which at this stage cannot be straightway

rejected till further verification is made. Moreso, from the demonstration

made by Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant-petitioners it appears

that the applicant-petitioners have got some locus to challenge the decision

of the respondents-TPSC regarding answers to the questions as referred

above.

However, the written examination is scheduled to be held on

02.05.2026(tomorrow). Hence, it is ordered that the respondents-TPSC

shall allow the applicant-petitioners, provisionally to appear in the Main

Written Examination and that the candidature of the applicant-petitioners

shall be subject to the outcome of the connected writ petition filed by the

petitioners.

With this observation, the present interlocutory application

stands allowed and disposed of.

A copy of this order be supplied to Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey

for the respondents-TPSC for information and compliance in course of the

day. Also a copy of this order be supplied to Learned Senior Counsel for the

applicant-petitioners for information in course of the day.

JUDGE

Snigdha

SNIGDHA Digitally signed by

SNIGDHA DAS

DAS Date: 2026.05.01

18:35:48 +05'30'