Judgment and Order : Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 673 of 2015 and Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1073 of 2016. Also heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 in WP(C) No. 673 of 2015 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 7 in WP(C) No. 673 of 2015 whereas Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 673 of 2015. 2. These writ petitions being WP(C) No. 673 of 2015 [Smti. Mallika Datta vs. The State of Tripura and Others] and WP(C) No. 1073 of 2016 [Smti. Tapashi Ghosh (Saha) vs. The State of Tripura and Others] are structured on a common ground of challenge. The petitioners have challenged the restriction as imposed on one year diploma in Elementary Education obtained after 2005. It is to be noted that those who passed the said one year diploma course in Elementary Education before 2005, they were declared eligible for appearing in the Tripura Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TTET in short). Since the result of the petitioners for the said one year diploma course from NCTE recognized institution was published after 2005, they were not allowed to appear in the said TTET. Being aggrieved, they have approached this Court. 3. In one of the writ petitions, this Court has passed an order on 18.12.2015 [in I.A. No. 648 of 2015 arising from WP(C) No. 73 of 2015] to the effect that “if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, she will be provided with the appropriate relief including consideration of her appointment from the date when the teachers will be appointed in terms of the said advertisement dated 02.11.2005 and if required, the relaxation of age shall also be considered at that point of time.” 4. There is no dispute that the petitioners are otherwise eligible for appearing in the TTET but their applications were not entertained since they completed the one year diploma course from the NCTE recognized educational institutions after 2005. 5. Mr. There is no dispute that the petitioners are otherwise eligible for appearing in the TTET but their applications were not entertained since they completed the one year diploma course from the NCTE recognized educational institutions after 2005. 5. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 has submitted that the policy is determined by the respondent No. 5 not by the other respondents and the decision in respect of the said restriction has been taken by the State Council for the Educational Research and Training (SCERT) on the basis of the notification under No. ERC/763.6.5/2005/22182244 dated 04.05.2006 (Annexure-R/1) to the reply filed by the respondents represented by Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. 6. In the order dated 08.06.2004 (Annexure-R/3), the respondent No. 5, National Council for Teachers’ Education (NCTE for short) has observed that the course duration of one year will be changed to 2 years from the session 20052006 as per the NCTE norms. From a scrutiny of the said order, this Court does not find any definite stipulation that those who passed the said one year course from a NCTE recognized institution after 2005 would not be allowed to appear for the TTET and thus from participation in the selection for the teachers in the schools. 7. Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned G.A. has further referred to the communication under No. F.623/2012/NCTE/N & S/16190 dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure-R/III) to the reply filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and contended that in the said communication dated 26.10.2015 the following was asserted: “No. one year diploma in education is equivalent to two years diploma in Elementary Education. However, the candidates who have obtained one year diploma in education from NCTE recognized institution prior to year 2005 are eligible to be appointed.” 8. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. has emphasized that on the basis of the one year diploma, the candidates may appear in the TTET or the selection process, had the one year diploma been acquired before 2005. There is a distance in the content of the order dated 08.06.2004 as referred and the entry in the communication dated 26.08.2015, if read without any conjunction. There is a distance in the content of the order dated 08.06.2004 as referred and the entry in the communication dated 26.08.2015, if read without any conjunction. Those would mean that who could not acquire the one year diploma course from a NCTE recognized institution prior to 2005, would not be allowed to appear in the TTET or in the further process of the recruitment of the teachers. But to dispel this confusion, the respondent No. 5, the NCTE filed an affidavit and has categorically asserted as under: “8. That the answering deponent begs to state that the para 3(c) of the ERC order dated 08.06.2004 it is also provided that the duration of 1 year diploma of Under Graduate Training (UGT) course will be changed to 2 years duration from the academic session 20052006 as per NCTE norms. The answering deponent further begs to submit that after 2005 this diploma was for duration of 2 years as per the NCTE Regulation 2001. 9. That under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the deponent humbly submits that the stand taken by the writ petitioner is considered tenable in view of the NCTE, ERC Order No. ERC/745.5.3/2004/1758 passed on 08.06.2004. Thus, the candidate who had entered in the course in 2004, in the academic session of 20042005 is considered as eligible otherwise not.” 9. Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has made a clear statement in terms of the order dated 07.08.2015 that the persons who have acquired one year diploma from NCTE recognized institution would be eligible perennially to appear in the TTET or in the recruitment process. Hence, both these writ petitions are allowed. 10. The petitioners shall be permitted to appear in the TTET without raising further objection to their one year diploma course as those were taken from the NCTE recognized institution. After 2005 one year diploma course in the Elementary Education had ceased to exist but for the transition from one year course to two years course, some candidates alike the petitioners have acquired such diploma even after 2005 for so many reasons. Now the NCTE has come with their reply and categorically stated as above. 11. Even Mr. After 2005 one year diploma course in the Elementary Education had ceased to exist but for the transition from one year course to two years course, some candidates alike the petitioners have acquired such diploma even after 2005 for so many reasons. Now the NCTE has come with their reply and categorically stated as above. 11. Even Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 has fairly submitted that as the NCTE has taken that position, the respondents whom he is representing shall have no objection to allow the petitioners to appear in the TTET or in the recruitment process for the teachers in different schools run by the State Government or in the Grantinaid Schools. 12. In this juncture, Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 673 of 2015 has submitted that for not allowing the petitioners to appear in the TTET in 2015 and 2016, the petitioner has by now crossed the maximum age for the Government job and as such, even if the petitioner is permitted to appear in the TTET unless the upper age limit is not relaxed, even if the petitioner succeeds in the TTET she would not get any benefit out of such result. 13. In this context, the State respondents are directed to give the writ petitioner (in WP(C) No. 673 of 2015) relaxation of 2 years over the maximum age for the public employment i.e. 40 years from the very date when the petitioner crossed or would cross 40 years. Such relaxation has been directed having regard to the special circumstances of this case. In terms of the above, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.