# Parimal Kumar & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 134
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-01-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/parimal-kumar-ors-v-the-state-of-jharkhand-ors-38178
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Issue arose whether on commencement of recruitment process on
the date of advertisement, the private respondents or the appellants
possessed the minimum qualification prescribed in the 2022
Recruitment Rules; whether the interim order and the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court based on the concession of
the Advocate General of the State, would amount to change of
rules of the game after commencement of recruitment process;
whether in terms of s.23(2) of RTE Act and para 10 of NCTE
Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, how far the State Government can
change the eligibility criteria and the impugned judgment recording
concession, falls within such parameter.
Headnotes†
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 - s.23 - Eligibility criteria for recruitment of teachers -
Selection of Assistant Teachers - Private respondentsresidents of Jharkhand having cleared the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test-CTET or neighbouring states' Teacher Eligibility
Test-TET sought permission to participate in the recruitment
process for the post of Assistant Teacher in Jharkhand or
sought directions against the State to conduct the JTET -
Private respondents contended that the State of Jharkhand
conducted the last JTET in the year 2016 and since then failed
to conduct JTET, which caused irreparable loss to thousands
of eligible aspirants, waiting for recruitment as teachers in
Jharkhand - High Court permitted the private respondents to
participate in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant
Teacher, with the stipulation to clear the JTET in the first chance
available within three years from the date of appointment, and
* Author
1954
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in case the JTET is not conducted within the next three years,
the candidates who had cleared the examination process shall
not be removed from service - Challenged by the appellants,
who have cleared the JTET:
Held: Impugned judgment of the High Court permitting the
candidates of CTET and STET holders of neighbouring States to
participate in ongoing selection process to the post of Assistant
Teacher of Primary and Upper Primary schools pursuant to
Advertisement set-aside - On the date of commencement of
recruitment process and on the date of publication of Advertisement,
the members of the respondent no. 6 and son/daughter of
respondent no. 7 did not possess the requisite qualification as
specified in the 2022 Recruitment Rules - Giving concession by
the Advocate General on the basis of oral instructions to allow the
CTET candidates or STET of neighbouring States in the ongoing
selection process, not in consonance with law, it amounts to
arbitrary alteration of eligibility in the ongoing recruitment process
mid-way - Passing of TET conducted by the State for the schools
as defined in s.2(n) essential on the date of commencement of
the recruitment process, which is posited in the 2022 Recruitment
Rules as well as the Advertisement - State Government had not
taken any decision to not to conduct the TET prior to the date of
commencement of the recruitment process to fulfil the prerequisite
of para 10(b) and the notification of Central Government relaxing
the minimum qualification as prescribed u/s.23(2) also not on
record - State could not have changed the eligibility criteria as laid
down after the point of time of issuance of the advertisement, in
the absence of any power in the relevant recruitment rules or the
advertisement to give effect to such a change - Thus, the Revised
eligibility criteria by 2024 amended rules cannot be applied to the
ongoing recruitment process initiated under the Advertisement,
as doing so would amount to altering the rules of the game after
the recruitment process has commenced - Directions issued
by the High Court amounts to change in eligibility criteria in the
ongoing recruitment process - Concession given by the Advocate
General was contrary to the stand of the State Government which
is unconscionable, unjustified and unfair

## Text

_Characters 0–39,950 of 76,899. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39950 for what follows._

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1953 : 2025 INSC 134
Parimal Kumar & Ors.
v.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 2025)
30 January 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether on commencement of recruitment process on
the date of advertisement, the private respondents or the appellants
possessed the minimum qualification prescribed in the 2022
Recruitment Rules; whether the interim order and the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court based on the concession of
the Advocate General of the State, would amount to change of
rules of the game after commencement of recruitment process;
whether in terms of s.23(2) of RTE Act and para 10 of NCTE
Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, how far the State Government can
change the eligibility criteria and the impugned judgment recording
concession, falls within such parameter.
Headnotes†
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 - s.23 - Eligibility criteria for recruitment of teachers -
Selection of Assistant Teachers - Private respondentsresidents of Jharkhand having cleared the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test-CTET or neighbouring states' Teacher Eligibility
Test-TET sought permission to participate in the recruitment
process for the post of Assistant Teacher in Jharkhand or
sought directions against the State to conduct the JTET -
Private respondents contended that the State of Jharkhand
conducted the last JTET in the year 2016 and since then failed
to conduct JTET, which caused irreparable loss to thousands
of eligible aspirants, waiting for recruitment as teachers in
Jharkhand - High Court permitted the private respondents to
participate in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant
Teacher, with the stipulation to clear the JTET in the first chance
available within three years from the date of appointment, and
* Author
1954
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in case the JTET is not conducted within the next three years,
the candidates who had cleared the examination process shall
not be removed from service - Challenged by the appellants,
who have cleared the JTET:
Held: Impugned judgment of the High Court permitting the
candidates of CTET and STET holders of neighbouring States to
participate in ongoing selection process to the post of Assistant
Teacher of Primary and Upper Primary schools pursuant to
Advertisement set-aside - On the date of commencement of
recruitment process and on the date of publication of Advertisement,
the members of the respondent no. 6 and son/daughter of
respondent no. 7 did not possess the requisite qualification as
specified in the 2022 Recruitment Rules - Giving concession by
the Advocate General on the basis of oral instructions to allow the
CTET candidates or STET of neighbouring States in the ongoing
selection process, not in consonance with law, it amounts to
arbitrary alteration of eligibility in the ongoing recruitment process
mid-way - Passing of TET conducted by the State for the schools
as defined in s.2(n) essential on the date of commencement of
the recruitment process, which is posited in the 2022 Recruitment
Rules as well as the Advertisement - State Government had not
taken any decision to not to conduct the TET prior to the date of
commencement of the recruitment process to fulfil the prerequisite
of para 10(b) and the notification of Central Government relaxing
the minimum qualification as prescribed u/s.23(2) also not on
record - State could not have changed the eligibility criteria as laid
down after the point of time of issuance of the advertisement, in
the absence of any power in the relevant recruitment rules or the
advertisement to give effect to such a change - Thus, the Revised
eligibility criteria by 2024 amended rules cannot be applied to the
ongoing recruitment process initiated under the Advertisement,
as doing so would amount to altering the rules of the game after
the recruitment process has commenced - Directions issued
by the High Court amounts to change in eligibility criteria in the
ongoing recruitment process - Concession given by the Advocate
General was contrary to the stand of the State Government which
is unconscionable, unjustified and unfair - JTET holders who were
possessing the requisite qualification under the 2022 Recruitment
Rules, prior to the 2024 Amendment and participated to be eligible
for appointment and their result be declared forthwith and the
appointments be made strictly on merit - CTET holders or STET
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1955
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
holders, who have applied after the judgment of the High Court
or after amendment in the rules or advertisement would not be
eligible for the recruitment in furtherance to the Advertisement -
Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions
of Service) Rules, 2022. [Paras 34-63]
Education/Educational Institutions - Role of teachers in nation
building - Importance of:
Held: [Per Rajesh Bindal J.] Role played by a teacher especially
when dealing with students in primary schools is of utmost
importance - Teachers educate the young minds, to mould them
into better human beings - Imprint a teacher leaves on the minds
of their students is everlasting - Social media has overpowered
our lives and so the cyber-bullying, which is affecting students
more - Proper guidance is essential to educate them at an early
stage, enabling them to discern right from wrong - In this context,
the role of a teacher is crucial - It is the duty of the teacher to
guide the students as to how to make a distinction - Positive and
negative applications of artificial intelligence are being experienced
by everyone today - In this context, the role of teachers becomes
crucial, as they can guide students on the dos and don'ts of use
of technology - With the change in scenario, it is the utmost duty
of a teacher to apprise the young minds and also guide them
regarding safe use of technology - This is one of the important
areas where teachers also need to appreciate their responsibility
besides formal education, to prepare them to be responsible citizens
of the country. [Paras 2, 9, 10, 12]
Case Law Cited
[Per J.K. Maheshwari J.]
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2024
INSC 847 : [2024] 12 SCR 28 - followed.
Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. [2016] 7
SCR 639 : (2017) 1 SCC 350; V. Lavanya and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu [2016] 9 SCR 835 : (2017) 1 SCC 322 - held inapplicable.
N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990)
3 SCC 157; P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala [2003] 2 SCR 653 :
(2003) 3 SCC 541; Devesh Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.
[2023] 11 SCR 167 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985; Assam PSC v.
1956
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Pranjal Kumar Sarma and Ors. [2019] 14 SCR 1072 : (2020) 20
SCC 680; State of Bihar v. Madhu Kant Ranjan [2021] 9 SCR 506 :
(2021) 17 SCC 141; State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty
and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 646; Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas
Kumar Agarwal and Ors. [2016] 7 SCR 639 : (2017) 1 SCC 350;
V. Lavanya and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2016] 9 SCR 835 :
(2017) 1 SCC 322; Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan [2011]
11 SCR 635 : (2011) 12 SCC 85; Bank of India v Aarya K. Babu
[2019] 11 SCR 627 : (2019) 8 SCC 587; Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff
Selection Committee [2023] 16 SCR 813 : 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1472; Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. v High Court of Kerala and
Ors. [2023] 11 SCR 674 : (2024) 3 SCC 799; State of Tripura v.
Nikhil Ranjan Chakroborty and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 646; Bank of
India v. Aarya K. Babu [2019] 11 SCR 627 : (2019) 8 SCC 587;
Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Committee [2023] 16 SCR
813 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472 - referred to.
[Per Rajesh Bindal J.]
Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School
Education [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 893 : (1989) 1 SCC 392; State
of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale [1992] 3 SCR 792 :
(1992) 4 SCC 435; Sushmita Basu & Ors. v. Ballygunge Siksha
Samity [2006] Supp. 6 SCR 506 : (2006) 7 SCC 680 - referred to.
List of Acts
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009;
Jharkhand Teachers' Eligibility Test 2019; Assistant Acharya Cadre
(Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022;
Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012;
Jharkhand Primary School Sahayak Acharya Sanwarg (Assistant
Teacher Cadre) (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions)
(Third Amendment) Rules, 2024; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Central Teacher Eligibility Test; Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test;
Recruitment process; Post of Assistant Teacher; Teacher Eligibility
Test; Revised eligibility criteria; Concession of the Advocate
General; Altering the rules of the game after the recruitment process
has commenced; CTET and STET holders of neighbouring States
to participate in ongoing selection process; Assistant Teacher of
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1957
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Primary and Upper Primary schools; Legitimate expectations;
Change in eligibility criteria; Teachers; Social media; Cyber-bullying;
Duty of the teacher to guide the students; Positive and negative
applications of artificial intelligence; Safe use of technology; Utmost
duty of a teacher to apprise the young minds.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2023 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPC No. 2785 of 2023
With
Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. V Mohana, Sr. Advs., Sahil Bhalaik,
Amritansh Vats, Tushar Giri, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Ms. Shivani
Vij, Ms. Bhavya Pande, Ms. Oishi Das, Abhishek Kumar Singh,
Tushar Arora, Ekansh Bansal, Siddhartha Sinha, Abhishek Kumar
Singh, Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Ms.
Jyoti Fartiyal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Maninder Singh, Guru Krishan Kumar S., Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
Sr. Advs., Anirudh Sharma, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Ms. Pallavi
Langar, Aditya Kumar A. C., V. Aravind, Beenu Sharma, Mandeep
Kalra, Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Ms. Radhika Jalan, Ms. Nanakey
Kalra, Chandratanay Chaube, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
To educate is not merely to impart information, but to instil the ability
to think critically, to inspire curiosity and to foster the love of learning.
By imparting knowledge and life skills, teachers shape the foundation
for lifelong learning and responsible citizenship. The importance of
1958
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
education and the paramount role of teachers in today's day and
age cannot be underplayed.
3.
The instant appeals arise out of the judgement dated 20.12.2023 of the
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, permitting the private respondents
who were residents of Jharkhand and cleared the Central Teacher
Eligibility Test (the "CTET") or neighbouring states' Teacher Eligibility
Test (the "STET") to participate in the recruitment process for the
post of Assistant Teacher in Primary and Upper Primary schools in
the State of Jharkhand in furtherance to Advertisement No. 13 of
2023. The appellants have cleared the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility
Test (the "JTET") and are challenging the participation of the private
respondents in the said recruitment process.
4.
In the present case, the dispute arose when private respondents
herein, i.e., the CTET qualified candidates filed Writ Petition (PIL)
No. 2785 of 2023 and other Writ Petitions being Writ Petition (C)
Nos. 5559/2022, 5697/2022 and 1936/2023 before the High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi seeking directions against the State to either
conduct the JTET or permit CTET qualified candidates to participate
in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher. It was
contended by the private respondents herein (Petitioners therein)
that the State of Jharkhand conducted the last JTET in the year
2016 and since then failed to conduct JTET. This has caused
irreparable loss to thousands of eligible aspirants who have been
waiting for recruitment as teachers in Jharkhand but have not been
permitted to participate as they do not possess JTET qualification.
Before discussing the merits of the case, it would be apposite to
discuss the factual background which culminated in the impugned
judgment.
Factual Background -
5.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
(the "RTE Act") came into force on 01.04.2010. Section 23(1)
thereof authorises the 'academic authority' to lay down minimum
qualifications required for any person to be eligible for appointment
as a teacher. The Central Government vide Notification S.O. 750(E)
dated 31.03.2010, authorized the National Council for Teacher
Education (the "NCTE") as the academic authority to prescribe the
minimum qualifications for the post of teacher.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1959
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
6.
NCTE issued the Notification F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S)
dated 23.08.2010 prescribing the minimum qualifications for the post
of teacher in Class I to Class VIII in a school referred to in clause
(n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act. One of the minimum qualifications
is passing Teachers Eligibility Test (the "TET") "conducted by the
appropriate Government in accordance with Guidelines framed by
the NCTE for the purpose". It is this requirement which is central to
the present litigation.
7.
On 11.02.2011, the NCTE issued the Guidelines for conducting
Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under RTE Act. As per para No. 10,
the Central Government and State Government both would conduct
separate TETs, which shall make them eligible for appointment in
the schools specified therein. The said guideline is relevant, hence
reproduced as under -
"10. Applicability -
(a) TET conducted by the Central Government shall apply
to all schools referred to in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of
section 2 of the RTE Act.
(b) TET conducted by a State Government/UT with
legislature shall apply to:
(i) a school of the State Government/UT with
legislature and local authority referred to in
sub-clause (i) of clause (n) of section 2 of the
RTE Act; and
(ii) a school referred to in sub-clause (ii) of clause
(n) of section 2 of the RTE Act in that State/UT.
A school at (i) and (ii) may also consider eligibility of a
candidate who has obtained TET Certificate awarded
by another State/UT with legislature. In case a State
Government/UT with legislature decides not to conduct a
TET, a school at (i) and (ii) in that State/UT would consider
the TET conducted by the Central Government."
8.
In reference to applicability of the guidelines, definitions as contained
in Section 2(a)(i), 2(n)(i) and 2(n)(ii) of RTE Act, 2009, are also
relevant, which are quoted herein under -
1960
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"2. Definitions -
(a) "appropriate government" means -
(i) in relation to a school established, owned or
controlled by the Central Government, or the
administrator of the Union territory, having no
legislature, the Central Government;
xx
xx
xx
xx
(n) "school" means any recognised school imparting
elementary education and includes-
(i) a school established, owned or controlled by the
appropriate Government or a local authority;
(ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet
whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate
Government or the local authority;"
9.
The State of Jharkhand on 04.10.2019 came up with the rules styled
as 'Jharkhand Teachers' Eligibility Test 2019' wherein Rule 5 posited
that to check the eligibility for appointment to the post of teacher, the
examination will be conducted every year by the Jharkhand Academic
Council or by the authority authorized by the State Government in this
behalf and the successful candidates will be eligible for appointment
in the Elementary Schools (Primary/Higher Primary School).
10. The service conditions for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher
in primary schools in the State of Jharkhand are governed by the
'Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions
of Service) Rules, 2022', (hereinafter referred to as the "2022
Recruitment Rules"). Under these Rules, one of the eligibilities for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary or Upper
Primary Schools is that the candidate should qualify "JTET". Prior
to these rules, the appointment to the post of elementary school
teachers was governed by the Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers
Appointment Rules, 2012 (the "2012 Rules").
11. On 19.07.2023, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
(the "JSSC") advertised and notified 13,000 vacancies for the
post of Assistant Teachers vide Advertisement No. 13/2023 (the
"Advertisement No. 13") and scheduled the 'Jharkhand Primary
School Trained Assistant Teacher Combined Competitive Examination
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1961
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
2023'. As per the Advertisement and the Recruitment Rules, passing
JTET is one of the eligibility for the candidates along with other
qualifications.
Proceedings before the High Court -
12. In the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2785 of 2023, filed by Respondent
No. 6 (an unregistered association of CTET holders) and Respondent
No. 7 (mother of one of the aspirants), the directions were sought
against the State to either conduct the JTET or permit CTET qualified
candidates to participate in the selection process for primary and
upper primary teachers.
13. The State of Jharkhand being respondent contested the claim and
in the counter-affidavit, inter-alia stated that the JTET could not be
conducted due to COVID-19 and the new rules to bring the JTET at
par with the quality and standard of CTET was in progress. It was
also contended that CTET is conducted to determine the eligibility
of teachers to be recruited in Central Government Schools, thus
it does not fulfil the needs and requirements of the schools in the
State of Jharkhand.
14. The High Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 directed the State of
Jharkhand to file an affidavit clarifying, whether the State intends to
allow the candidates who had cleared CTET or STET, to participate
in the recruitment process. The said order is relevant, hence, quoted
hereunder for ready reference -
"In course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ajit
Kumar, appearing for the petitioners in the lead case
would draw the attention of the Court to Clause 10 of the
Guidelines for conducting TET wherein it is provided at
Sub Clause (b) that a School referred to in Sub clause (i)
and Sub clause (ii) mentioned therein may also consider
eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET Certificate
awarded by another State / UT with legislature. In case
a State Government/UT with legislature decides not to
conduct a TET, a School at (i) and (ii) in that State/UT would
consider the TET conducted by the Central Government
we are of the opinion that if the State Government is
genuinely creating a number of posts for which State
TET examination is required to be conducted, which has
1962
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
not been held for at least almost 9 (nine) years, i.e., last
examination was held in 2016, then it should take into
consideration the said provision.
We advise the State to file a short affidavit stating whether
they intend to allow those candidates, who have obtained
TET Certificate from the Central Government or any other
State / UT, provided other conditions are fulfilled.
Let all these cases be listed on 18th August, 2023."
15. In compliance, supplementary counter-affidavit was filed by State
contending that there are sufficient JTET qualified candidates available
in the State, and allowing CTET qualified teachers to apply for the
vacancies advertised will cause prejudice to the rights of the JTET
qualified candidates. Further, the CTET or STET qualified candidates
can be considered only if the State Government 'decides not to
conduct TET', however, 'no such decision' has been taken.
16. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2023 allowed
WP (PIL) No. 2785/2023 and batch, recorded the 'concession' of the
Advocate General based on oral instructions, contrary to the stand
taken in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit
that the State had decided to relax the eligibility criteria and was
ready to permit the respondents and other residents of Jharkhand
having cleared CTET or STET to participate in the ongoing process
of recruitment vide Advertisement No. 13, with the stipulation to
clear the JTET in the first available opportunity within three years.
It was directed that the candidates who would be appointed on the
strength of CTET or STET, would have to obtain JTET within a
period of three years on first available chance. It was also directed
that in case the State Government does not conduct JTET within the
next three years, the candidates who had cleared the examination
process shall not be removed from service.
Subsequent developments after the judgement -
17. Subsequent to the impugned judgment, the JSSC by way of
corrigendum invited online applications from the residents of
Jharkhand who cleared CTET or STET and could not apply as
per Advertisement No. 13 and rescheduled the test to be held on
10.02.2024.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1963
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
18. The State Government amended the Recruitment Rules on 29.01.2024
and styled them as "Jharkhand Primary School Sahayak Acharya
Sanwarg (Assistant Teacher Cadre) (Appointment, Promotion and
Service Conditions) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2024", (in short "2024
Amended Rules"). By amending Rule 3, residents of Jharkhand who
had qualified CTET or STET were made eligible for appointment as
Assistant Teacher with the stipulation as specified by the High Court
in the impugned order, i.e., to clear the JTET in the first chance
available within three years from the date of appointment.
19. After amendment in the Rules, Advertisement No. 13 was further
amended on 15.02.2024 changing the eligibility criteria as per 2024
Amended Rules, permitting the residents of Jharkhand such as the
private respondents to participate in the ongoing recruitment process
and thereafter changed the date of examination from time to time.
20. In the instant appeal, this Court vide order in the proceedings dated
26.04.2024 issued interim directions that the Jharkhand Primary
School Assistant Teacher Joint Competitive Examination, 2023
scheduled to commence from 27.04.2024 may continue, but its
result would not be declared without leave of this Court. As such,
the examination has been conducted awaiting the outcome of these
appeals.
Rival Contentions -
21. We now record the broad contentions advanced by appellants in
assailing the impugned judgment, which are as follows: -
21.1 The appellants contend that it is only the Central Government
which has the power to relax the minimum required qualifications
for appointment as a teacher laid down by the NCTE by
notification dated 11.02.2011 issued under Section 23 of the
RTE Act, and the State Government could not have usurped the
said power and granted relaxation allowing private respondents
to participate in the ongoing recruitment process, otherwise it
would militate the object and purpose of the RTE Act, 2009.
21.2 The "JTET" is better suited for the needs and requirements of
the schools in Jharkhand State since specific regional/tribal
language notified for each district is tested in the examination
and only the persons proficient in such languages are posted
in those districts.
1964
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
21.3 More than one lakh teachers holding JTET qualification are
available in the State and there was no need to relax the
minimum qualifications for ongoing selection in furtherance
to the Advertisement No. 13.
21.4 By virtue of the impugned judgment, teaching will be imparted
by teachers who would be under-qualified during the
interregnum, as they may or may not clear the JTET.
21.5 The appellants have a legitimate expectation to be recruited on
the strength of their 2016 JTET qualification and their chance
of being considered for recruitment cannot be denied.
21.6 The 2022 Recruitment Rules and the Advertisement No. 13
mandate clearing the JTET as a minimum eligibility criterion to
participate in the recruitment process, which cannot be taken
away merely on the basis of the impugned judgment based
on the concession of the Advocate General, contrary to the
provisions of the Central Act and the notification.
21.7 After the advertisement, once the recruitment process had
been initiated, it is not be lawful for the State to change the
eligibility criteria, otherwise it would tantamount to changing
the rules of the game mid-way.
21.8 To buttress the said contentions, reliance has been placed on
the judgments of this Court in N.T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka
Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157; P.M. Latha
Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541; Devesh Sharma Vs.
Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985; Assam
PSC Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma and Ors., (2020) 20 SCC 680.
22. The said contentions have been countered by the private respondents.
Their contentions are summarized as follows:
22.1 The requirement of knowledge of local language has been given
due weightage in the Recruitment Examination as specified
in the Advertisement No. 13.
22.2 Para 10(b) of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 permits the
State Government to recognize CTET and STET as qualification,
in case the State Government decides not to conduct TET.
22.3 Appellants have no legitimate expectations since the rules
were amended prior to the examination.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1965
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
22.4 Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 must be
read along with para 11, which mandates TET to be conducted
annually by the State.
23. The contentions of the appellants have also been opposed by the
State, and the arguments can be summarized as follows:
23.1 The State Government has taken the bona-fide decision to
expand the zone of consideration for recruitment without
altering the criteria for selection, which is in consonance with
the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011.
23.2 After the judgment, the last date of application has been
extended from time to time till 06.04.2024 and the eligibility of
candidates ought to be reckoned on the last date of submission
of application form.
23.3 Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 does not
prohibit the State Government to consider candidates holding
CTET certificates or STET and it can be pressed into service
in a situation as prescribed.
23.4 The respondents have relied upon the judgements of this
Court in 'State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan (2021) 17
SCC 141; State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty
and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 646; Vikas Sankhala and Ors.
Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 350; V.
Lavanya and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017) 1 SCC
322; Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12
SCC 85; Bank of India Vs. Aarya K. Babu (2019) 8 SCC
587; Ankita Thakur Vs. HP Staff Selection Committee 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1472; Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. Vs. High
Court of Kerala and Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 799'.
24. The core dispute revolves around the eligibility criteria for recruitment
of teachers across the State of Jharkhand. Before adverting to
the controversy, the main grievance of the Appellants who are
JTET certificate holders and having the eligibility prescribed in
the recruitment rules as per the Advertisement No. 13 on the date
of its publication stems from writ petition filed by Respondent
No. 6 (an un-registered association of CTET certificate holders)
and Respondent No. 7 (mother of one of the aspirants holding
CTET certificate) seeking direction to the State to either conduct
1966
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the JTET or permit CTET qualified candidates to participate in the
recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teachers. During the
pendency of the said writ petition, the Advertisement No. 13 was
issued to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers from the candidates,
who possessed the qualifications as prescribed in the recruitment
rules and the advertisement. In the said writ petition, the Court
passed an interim order on 25.07.2023 and asked the response
of the State, in which serious reservations were raised by the
Government. Despite such reservations on affidavit, the High Court
issued directions recording the concession of the Advocate General
permitting the CTET or STET holders to participate in the ongoing
recruitment process in furtherance to the Advertisement No. 13.
It is not out of place to mention here that on the date of passing
of the final judgment i.e., 20.12.2023, as per Recruitment Rules,
the minimum qualification for Primary and Upper Primary Teacher
was passing the JTET along with other educational qualifications,
however, impugned judgment was passed issuing a direction
permitting the CTET or STET holders contrary to the mandate of
Recruitment Rules. It is pertinent to further mention that in the writ
petition neither the Advertisement No. 13 was under challenge nor
the 2022 Recruitment Rules, even then by the direction of the High
Court, the CTET holders of State as well as the STET holders from
neighbouring States were permitted to participate in the ongoing
recruitment process, which had already commenced, which is not
in accordance with law.
25. The case as set up is that, the State Government by providing
relaxation and allowing CTET and STET holders to participate in
the ongoing recruitment process under the Advertisement No. 13
has usurped the powers of relaxation vested only with the Central
Government under Section 23(2) of RTE Act. In case the State lacks
adequate institutions for imparting training to teachers or there is
dearth of sufficient teachers possessing minimum qualifications,
then the Central Government may by notification, relax the minimum
qualifications of the teachers. The State Government does not
possess power to relax the qualifications for appointment except in
a manner prescribed in the NCTE Guidelines.
26. It has also been argued before us that once the Advertisement
No. 13 was notified and recruitment process commenced, no such
change in the eligibility criteria could have been brought by the State
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1967
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Government in the ongoing recruitment process. It is in this context
the following questions arise for consideration: -
i)
Whether on commencement of recruitment process on
19.07.2023, i.e., the date of advertisement, the private
respondents or the appellants possessed the minimum
qualification prescribed in the 2022 Recruitment Rules?
ii)
Whether the interim order dated 25.07.2023 and the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court based on the concession of
the Advocate General of the State, would amount to change of
rules of the game after commencement of recruitment process?
iii)
Whether in terms of Section 23(2) of RTE Act and para 10
of NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, how far the State
Government can change the eligibility criteria and the impugned
judgment recording concession, falls within such parameter?
Discussions and reasonings
In reference to Question (i)
27. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
relevant material placed before us. It is not disputed that 2022
Recruitment Rules were framed in exercise of the powers under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and to fulfil the
standards of the RTE Act for the post of Assistant Teachers. Chapter
2, Rule 3(d)(1) prescribes qualification for Intermediate Trained
Assistant Teacher with JTET as mentioned in Rule 3(f)(i)(b) and
Rule 3(d)(2) applies for Graduate Trained Teacher wherein passing
of the JTET as mentioned in Rule 3(f)(ii)(b) is essentially required
in addition to other qualifications. We are not referring to the other
qualifications prescribed in the Rules except above since it is pivotal
to the issue involved.
28. On perusal of Rule 3(f)(i)(b) and Rule 3(f)(ii)(b), it is clear that the
Assistant Teachers of Primary or Upper Primary Schools have
to pass the JTET examination conducted by the Government of
Jharkhand. Therefore, as per Rules, on the date of commencement
of the recruitment process in furtherance to Advertisement No. 13 for
the recruitment of teachers of Primary Schools and Upper Primary
School, passing of the JTET examination is the minimum eligibility
prescribed.
1968
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
29. In terms of the rules, the Advertisement No. 13 was notified on
19.07.2023 and in Clauses 5(1) and 5(2), the eligibility criteria for
the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher and Graduate
Trained Assistant Teacher was specified as under: -
"5(1) - Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) conducted
for classes 1 to 5 by the Government of Jharkhand under
the guidelines formulated by the National Council for
Teacher Education.
5(2) - Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) organized
by the Government of Jharkhand for classes 6 to 8 under
the guidelines formulated by the National Council for
Teacher Education."
30. With the said eligibility, the filling up of the form commenced on
08.08.2023 and the last date as specified was 07.09.2023, which
was subsequently changed to 15.09.2023. As per the information
furnished by respondent no. 6, the said process of filing up of the
forms was disrupted as per order dated 05.09.2023 passed in W.P.
(S) No. 4049/2023 in the case of "Bahadur Mahato and Ors. Vs.
The State of Jharkhand" till vacation of stay on 05.10.2023. The
date of filling up of the form was extended till 22.10.2023, which
was further extended to 06.11.2023. The extension was further
allowed as per order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4436/2023 until
09.11.2023. We need not refer to various other orders passed in
other writ petitions as they have no relevance to the issue involved
in the present case.
31. It is to state that in furtherance to the orders, the last date of filling
up of the forms was extended from time to time. For clarity it is to
mention that some of the aspirants filed W.P. (S) No. 4425/2023
challenging the 2022 Recruitment Rules and the Advertisement No.
13 on the pretext that prior to the 2022 Recruitment Rules, the 2012
Rules were in vogue and without repealing those Rules, notifying the
2022 Recruitment Rules is ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The
challenge was also made on ground that introduction of provision
of the written examination and interview in the 2022 Recruitment
Rules is not compatible for the persons possessing the minimum
eligibility under the 2012 Rules. The said challenge was negated
by the High Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 dismissing the writ
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1969
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
petition. The Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 23389/2024 preferred
against the said order was also dismissed on 09.09.2024. As such
the minimum eligibility prescribed in the recruitment rules on the date
of commencement of the recruitment process as specified in the
2022 Recruitment Rules and Advertisement No. 13 have relevance
and must be possessed by the candidates who participated in the
recruitment process.
32. Thus, the date of issuance of the advertisement i.e., 19.07.2023
would be date of the commencement of the recruitment process and
the minimum qualification and eligibility prescribed for an Assistant
Teacher was to pass the JTET conducted by the Government of
Jharkhand along with other educational qualifications as specified
in the Advertisement No. 13. As such, it can be safely concluded
that on the date of commencement of the recruitment process, the
qualification as prescribed was intermediate or graduation (as the
case may be) with JTET for the candidates applying in furtherance
to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher.
33. Reverting to the material placed before us on behalf of respondent
no. 6 (an un-registered association of CTET certificate holders),
nothing is brought to our notice to indicate that how many residents
of Jharkhand have passed CTET and whether they possess JTET
certificate or not. Further, respondent no. 7 is the mother of an
aspirant and the certificate of the son or daughter passing the
CTET or JTET examination has not been placed. It has also not
been brought on record that the members of the said un-registered
association and the son/daughter of respondent no. 7 possessed
the qualification as specified in the 2022 Recruitment Rules on the
date of commencement of the recruitment process. In absence of
any material, upon hearing we can safely conclude that neither
members of respondent no. 6 nor son/daughter of respondent no.
7 possess the requisite qualification i.e., JTET as prescribed in the
2022 Recruitment Rules.
34. In view of above discussion, the question No. (i) is answered holding
that on the date of commencement of recruitment process and on
the date of publication of Advertisement No. 13, i.e., 19.07.2023, the
members of the respondent no. 6 and son/daughter of respondent
no. 7 did not possess the requisite qualification as specified in the
2022 Recruitment Rules.
1970
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
In reference to Question Nos. (ii) & (iii) -
35. For analysing the questions and to elucidate the issue, it is necessary to
reiterate that the writ petition was filed by an un-registered association
of CTET holders and the mother of one of the aspirants, seeking
direction against the State either to conduct JTET or permit the CTET
qualified candidates to participate in the recruitment process for the
post of Assistant Teacher. The High Court by an interim order dated
25.07.2023 quoted in para 14 above, referred sub-clause (b) of para
10 of the NCTE Guidelines and asked the State Government that
since it was creating number of posts for which JTET was a necessary
criteria, the State TET examination is required to be conducted, which
has not been held for last almost nine years (wrongly mentioned,
though it was seven years) from the last examination held in 2016.
In the order, the High Court advised the State to file affidavit stating
whether they intend to allow those candidates, who have obtained
the TET certificate in an examination conduct by Central Government
or any other State provided they fulfil other eligibility.
36. In compliance, the State Government filed a supplementary counter
affidavit, inter-alia stating that JTET tests the knowledge of local
languages of the candidates, which is essential for the purpose of
recruitment as language teachers, and that there are adequate number
of JTET qualified candidates available within the state and allowing
CTET qualified teachers in the vacancies of the state run schools will
cause prejudice to the JTET qualified candidates. Most importantly, in
the context of para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines, the stand taken by the
State in the counter affidavit before High Court is referred as under: -
"18. It is further stated that a Central TET qualified
candidate or a candidate qualifying TET by another State/
UT can only be considered for a State run schools when
the particular State Government has decided not to conduct
its own TET.
19. That it is most humbly stated that it is not the case that
the State Government had decided not to conduct the JTET
and in these circumstances the State Government is not
bound to consider Central TET or a candidate qualifying
TET by another State/UT as eligible qualification.
20. That CTET qualified candidates can be made eligible
in a given contingency where the State Government is
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
1971
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v.