Supreme Court of India
PARIMAL KUMAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 134
- Decided
- 30 January 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K MAHESHWARI
Holding
Eligibility criteria fixed at the time of advertisement cannot be altered mid‑process; therefore, the High Court’s directions permitting CTET/STET candidates were invalid.
Summary
The appellants, who had passed the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) under the 2022 Recruitment Rules, challenged a High Court order that allowed candidates who cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or neighbouring states' Teacher Eligibility Tests (STET) to participate in the ongoing recruitment for Assistant Teachers in Jharkhand. The Court examined whether the eligibility criteria could be altered after the advertisement had been issued, whether the Advocate General's concession was lawful, and whether the State could relax qualifications under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act and NCTE Guidelines. It held that the recruitment process began on the date of the advertisement (19 July 2023) and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein could not be changed mid‑process without express authority, which the State lacked. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were set aside, the original eligibility based on JTET was upheld, and the results for qualified JTET candidates were to be declared. The appeal was allowed, restoring the original recruitment rules.
Issues considered
- Whether the private respondents or the appellants possessed the minimum qualification prescribed in the 2022 Recruitment Rules on the date of commencement of the recruitment process.
- Whether the High Court’s interim order and judgment, based on the Advocate General’s concession, amounted to an impermissible change of eligibility criteria after the recruitment process had begun.
- Whether the State Government, under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act and para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines, could lawfully relax the eligibility criteria mid‑process.
Legislation cited
- Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022
- Constitution of India
- 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
- Jharkhand Teachers’ Eligibility Test 2019
- Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009s. 23(1), s. 23(2)
Headnote
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 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
Subjects
Central Teacher Eligibility TestJharkhand Teacher Eligibility TestRecruitment processPost of Assistant TeacherTeacher Eligibility TestRevised eligibility criteriaConcession of the Advocate GeneralAltering the rules of the game after the recruitment process has commencedCTET and STET holders of neighbouring States to participate in ongoing selection processAssistant Teacher of Primary and Upper Primary schoolsLegitimate expectationsChange in eligibility criteriaTeachersSocial mediaCyber-bullyingDuty of the teacher to guide the studentsPositive and negative applications of artificial intelligenceSafe use of technologyUtmost duty of a teacher to apprise the young minds
Judgment
[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 respondents-
residents 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. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
not conducting TET, but when this contingency does not
exist, there is no occasion to make Central TET candidates
eligible or to allow those candidates who have obtained
TET certificates from Central Government or another
other State/UT.
21. That it is most humbly stated that there has been certain
contingencies due to which regular JTET Examination
could not be conducted regularly and hence the state
is intending to allow age relaxation to the candidates
for upcoming vacancies, moreover, it is also intended
to conduct JTET examination before the start of fresh
recruitment of teachers within the State.
22. That it is stated that the issue whether to consider
the CTET or the TET from other State/ UT is a matter of
policy decision of the State Government.”
37. On perusal of the stand noted above, it is apparent that a candidate
who has qualified TET, conducted by another State or conducted by
the Centre, can be considered for State run schools only when the
State has decided not to conduct its own TET. As the Government has
not taken decision for not conducting the TET therefore, the CTET or
the STET qualified candidates are not required to be made eligible.
Even then, the High Court in the impugned judgment recorded the
concession of the Advocate General based on oral instructions contrary
to the stand taken in counter affidavit and in para 6 observed as thus: -
“6. However, in course of hearing of these writ petitions
today, learned Advocate General appearing for the State
would submit that he has received oral instructions that the
State is willing to relax the criteria for eligibility as far as
the candidates having CTET examination certificate with
a stipulation that in a future date they have to clear the
State TET examination and those persons should be the
residents of Jharkhand. Since the law provides that every
year, there should be a TET Examination and for the last
so many years, there has been no examination for testing
the eligibility of aspirants to be appointed as teachers, we
are of the opinion that not only those candidates, who
have CTET certificate and residents of Jharkhand, but also
those residents of Jharkhand, having other qualification
1972 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and having State TET examination certificate of any of
the neighbouring States should also be given a chance to
appear in the examination with certain stipulations which
we propose to lay down in the following paragraphs.”
38. In view of the said observations, concluding paras 7, 8 and 9 of
the impugned judgment of the High Court are also relevant and are
quoted for ready reference as under: -
“7. In view of the proposal made by the learned Advocate
General and also having considered the matter to a great
anxiety, we hereby, dispose of the writ petitions and the
W.P. (PIL) directing the State Government to conduct the
TET examination every year, henceforth.
8. We further direct that those residents of the State of
Jharkhand, who are otherwise eligible to appear in the
examination and hold a CTET certificate or a certificate
issued by the neighbouring States having resident of
Jharkhand shall be allowed to appear in the ongoing
process with a further stipulation that the State shall
ensure that the examination, if not held within a year, is
held at least within next three years and the candidates
who have participated in the selection process and have
been appointed have to clear that STET examination within
a period of three years by giving one chance. They shall
pass it within three years and in one first available chance.
9. We further stipulate that the State Government shall
not conduct the examination at least for next three months
so that the candidates should get some time to get ready
or prepare for the exam. If the State Government fails
to conduct the examination within three years, then the
stipulation will not take its full effect and those candidates
who have cleared the examination process and having
otherwise qualified shall not be removed from service.”
39. On filing these appeals and after issuance of notice, the State
respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have filed the counter affidavit and stated
that the concession given by the Advocate General on behalf of the
State providing relaxation is in consonance with para 10(b) of the
NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, for which the Government is
having competence.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1973
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
40. We have examined the guidelines, on plain contextual reading of
para 10(b), it is unambiguously clear that TET conducted by the
State Government/UT with legislature shall apply to schools of State
Government/UT and local authority as defined in clause (i), (ii) of
sub-section (n) of Section 2 of RTE Act. The discretion is conferred
to the State schools to consider the candidates who have obtained
TET certificate awarded by another State/UT with legislature for the
purpose of eligibility. For the candidates possessing TET conducted by
the Central Government, it is specified that they may be considered
in case the State Government has decided ‘not to conduct the TET.’
Therefore, in respect of the TET certificate awarded by another
State/UT, it was a discretion of the State to accept for the purpose of
eligibility but for the TET of the Central Government such discretion
was with a rigour wherein the State Government has to decide that
it does not want to conduct the TET in the State. In our view, such
discretion may be exercised by the Government taking conscious
decision prior to commencement of the recruitment process, but
not after issuance of the advertisement or on the basis of direction
of the Court.
41. At the cost of repetition, at this juncture the stand taken in the counter
affidavit filed by the State Government before the High Court was that,
JTET could not be conducted due to COVID-19 and framing the new
rules in pipeline to bring the JTET at par with the quality and standard
of CTET. 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. In furtherance to the interim order dated
25.07.2023, the stand taken in the supplementary counter affidavit
was 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. The said stand
has been quoted in para 36 above.
42. The stand taken by the State in counter affidavit before this Court
was that the relaxation provided by the State Government is an
equitable solution, which is conditional with the stipulation that the
candidates must clear JTET in first available chance within 3 years
1974 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and in consonance with para 10(b) of the NCTE Guidelines dated
11.02.2011. However, in the written submission, the stand taken is
that para 10(b) of the Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 does not require
the State Government to take a ‘specific decision’ to not conduct
TET examination at all. It attracts when the TET has not been
conducted by the State Government and alternative methods as
set out in Guideline 10(b) can be availed. Para 11 of the Guidelines
dated 11.02.2011 require the State to conduct TET annually, and in
situations where the State decides not to conduct TET, it can consider
the eligibility as per para 10(b) of the Guidelines dated 11.02.2011.
43. In above reference, it is luculent that the State Government has
changed its stand at every stage of the litigation, which is not
conscionable and acceptable and in other words, it would amount to
arbitrary and unfair exercise of power by the State. After the specific
stand taken by the State in the counter-affidavit before the High
Court, the concession given by the Advocate General during hearing
would not amount to the communication of conscious decision of the
State. In fact, it ought to have been taken prior to the issuance of
advertisement and cannot disturb the ongoing recruitment process. In
the said factual situation, 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 process, cannot be said
to be in consonance with law.
44. In the impugned judgment, para 7 refers the concession of the Advocate
General and directions to the State Government to conduct TET
every year. Para 8 of the judgment contemplates that in view of the
concession of the Advocate General, the State is willing to relax the
criteria for eligibility as far as the residents of Jharkhand having CTET
or STET of the neighbouring States and they be allowed to appear
in the ongoing selection process. In our view, it amounts to arbitrary
alteration of eligibility in the ongoing recruitment process mid-way.
45. An endeavour has been made by the State to justify its act on the
strength of para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines. In this regard, to further
understand the true rigour thereof, it is pertinent to discuss the
provisions relating to minimum eligibility criteria for teachers under
the RTE Act and subsequent notifications.
46. Section 23 of the RTE Act specifies qualifications for appointment
and terms & conditions of the service of teachers. The said provision
is relevant therefore, reproduced as under: -
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1975
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
“23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and
conditions of service of teachers. —
(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications,
as laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the
Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for
appointment as a teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions
offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers
possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under
sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers,
the Central Government may, if it deems necessary, by
notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for
appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding
five years, as may be specified in that notification:
Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of
this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid
down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum
qualifications within a period of five years:
Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position
as on the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess
minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section
(1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a
period of four years from the date of commencement of
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
(Amendment) Act, 2017 (24 of 2017).
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms
and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as
may be prescribed.”
47. From the above, it is clear that Section 23(1) prescribes minimum
qualification notified by the academic authority to be possessed by a
teacher. Vide notification dated 31.03.2010, NCTE has been declared
as the academic authority to lay down the minimum qualification. As
per notification dated 23.08.2010, NCTE prescribed the minimum
qualification, whereby in addition to the intermediate or graduate in
the respective subject, passing of TET conducted by the appropriate
government in accordance with the guidelines for the purpose is
essential. NCTE has framed the guidelines for conducting the TET and
published it on 11.02.2011 wherein para 5 deals eligibility to acquire
1976 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the academic and professional qualifications as specified in the NCTE
notification. Para 5(iii) makes it clear that eligibility for appearing in
TET may be relaxed in respect of the State/UT under sub-section
(2) of section 23 of the RTE Act by way of notification of the Central
Government. Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines deals with applicability,
in particular of TET. The said guideline has already been referred to
in para 7 above, as per which, the TET conducted by the Central
Government shall apply in relation to a school established, owned
or controlled by the Central Government or the Administrator of UT
having no legislature. Similarly, TET conducted by State Government/
UT with legislature applies to a school of the State Government/UT
with legislature or local authority referred to in clause (i) or (ii) of sub-
section (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act. As discussed earlier above,
para 10 further specifies that a school to which the TET conducted by
the State Government/UT with legislature applies, may also consider
eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET certificate awarded by
another State/UT with legislature. In case a State /UT with legislature
decides not to conduct a TET, a school under para 10(b)(i) and (ii)
would consider the TET conducted by the Central Government.
48. Thus, from the said guidelines, it is quite vivid that for a school covered
by para 10(b)(i) & (ii), discretion has been conferred to accept the
TET certificate awarded by another State/UT. But for the same school,
if the State decides not to conduct TET, then discretion has been
given to consider the TET conducted by the Central Government for
eligibility. In our view, the High Court has not considered the said
provision in right perspective for which it is introduced.
49. Now reverting to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, by which the power
to relax the minimum qualification can be exercised by the Central
Government in case the State does not have adequate institutions
offering courses or training in teacher education or teachers possessing
minimum qualifications as laid-down in sub-section (1) of Section 23
are not available in sufficient numbers. In the said contingency, the
relaxation in the eligibility condition may be granted not more than 5
years. From the material placed before us, it is clear that the State
Government has not applied asking relaxation and it has failed to
make out a case within the four corners of Section 23(2) of RTE Act.
50. From the above discussion, passing of TET conducted by the State
for the schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act is essential
on the date of commencement of the recruitment process, which is
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1977
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
posited in the 2022 Recruitment Rules as well as the Advertisement
No. 13.
51. The appellants have argued that in light of Section 23(2) of the
RTE Act, only the Central Government has the power to relax the
eligibility criteria. Per contra, the respondents have argued that
in view of para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, the
State Government has the power to relax and to consider CTET or
STET. In the facts as discussed, issuance of the notification by the
Central Government granting exemption in terms of Clause 23(2) of
the RTE Act has neither been raised by the parties before the High
Court nor answered, therefore, we are also not deciding this issue
in true sense. As discussed above, the 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 pre-requisite
of para 10(b) and the notification of Central Government relaxing
the minimum qualification as prescribed under Section 23(2) of the
RTE Act is also not on record. As per the material placed above, it
is suffice to conclude that the concession of the Advocate General
referring para 10, styled as “Applicability” of the NCTE Guidelines
having effect of change of eligibility criteria in the ongoing recruitment
process cannot be accepted. In said circumstances, we are restricting
our opinion on the question of relaxing the qualification mid-way in
on-going recruitment process and its applicability.
52. In the sequel of the facts and discussions made hereinabove and to
elucidate the issue legally in detail, we can profitably refer the recent
judgement of the Constitution Bench of this Court in ‘Tej Prakash
Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2024 INSC 847,
whereby this Court had the occasion to deal with the question as
to whether the State can tinker with the rules of the game insofar
as the prescription of eligibility criteria mid-way. While answering
the said question in clear terms, it was held that eligibility criteria/
essential qualifications of candidates seeking recruitment cannot be
altered after the recruitment process has begun. The relevant part
of the judgment dealing with the issue, is reproduced hereunder –
“6. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to be
determined is the date appointed by the relevant service
rules; where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules,
then it will be the date appointed in the advertisement
inviting applications; and if there is no such date appointed,
1978 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
then eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the
last date appointed by which the applications were to be
received.
7. The law is settled that after commencement of the
recruitment process the eligibility criteria is not to be altered
because candidates even if eligible under the altered criteria
might not apply by the last date under the belief that they
are not eligible as per the advertised criteria. Such alteration/
change, therefore, deprives a person of the guarantee
of equal opportunity in matters of public employment
provided by Article 16 of the Constitution. The reference
order therefore acknowledges this legal position and in
clear terms accepts that ‘the rules of the game’ cannot be
changed after commencement of the recruitment process
insofar as the eligibility criteria is concerned.”
53. The Constitution Bench has also clarified that the recruitment process
commences from the date of issuance of the advertisement and
concludes with the filling up of notified vacancies.
“13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance
of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified
vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting
applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective
applications or elimination of ineligible candidates,
conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva
voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for
appointment.”
54. After much deliberation, the Constitution Bench concluded the
reference as thus –
“42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following
terms –
(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of
the advertisement calling for applications and ends with
filling up of vacancies;
(2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List,
notified at the commencement of the recruitment process,
cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1979
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement,
which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even
if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or
the advertisement, the change would have to meet the
requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy
the test of non-arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good
law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha
(supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select
List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to
be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal
with altogether different issues;
(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may
devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment
process to its logical end provided the procedure so
adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary
and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved.
(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the
recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to
appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However,
if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone
of consideration in the select list.”
55. The position of law as per Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is therefore
clear, that the recruitment process commences from the issuance
of the advertisement, and that eligibility criteria as laid down therein
cannot be changed mid-way during the recruitment process unless
the extant rules or the advertisement permit such a change after
the issuance. Even if such a power to amend is reserved in the
advertisement or the rules, it must be tested on the anvil of Article
14 and pass the test of non–arbitrariness.
1980 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
56. Learned counsel for the respondents referring Clause 5(i) of the
Advertisement No. 13 made an attempt to contend that the last date
of submission of application form which is amended time to time may
be taken as the date of eligibility. For ready reference, Clause 5(i)
of the Advertisement No. 13 is reproduced as under: -
“(i) It will be mandatory for the candidates to have passed
the desired minimum educational qualification by the
last date of receipt of applications in the Commission.
That is, the last date of submission of online application
will be considered as the reference date for determining
educational qualification. If any candidate does not
possess the prescribed educational qualification by
this date, he/she will be considered ineligible to fill the
application.”
57. In the present case, undisputedly, the Advertisement No. 13 was
issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per
2022 Recruitment Rules. By which the candidates must have passed
Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand. On the
date of pronouncement of impugned judgment, those rules were in
vogue, even then, the High Court issued the direction accepting the
CTET and STET as eligibility contrary to the existing rules. After the
impugned judgment, the examination was postponed until 10.02.2024.
Applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possession
CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 as
per notice dated 10.01.2024. The amendments in 2022 Recruitment
Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing
for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process. Later,
the amendment in the advertisement was made. Thus, it is clear that
on the date of advertisement, as per prevailing rules, the eligibility
criteria were changed. In our considered opinion, this is amounting
to change the rules of game after the game has begun as settled
in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra). Therefore, the entire
action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary
to the law settled by this Court.
58. Considering the above, we do not find much strength in this argument.
The import of clause 5(i) of the advertisement is merely that the
eligibility of the candidate participating in the recruitment process
shall be reckoned on the last date of submission of applications. It
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1981
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
does not empower the State to amend / alter / change the eligibility
criteria specially when it has been notified on the date of issuance
of the advertisement, unless the extant Rules permit to do so, which
is evidently not the case here. To put it in another way, applying
the ratio as laid down in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra), the 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. Without expressing any opinion on
the State’s authority to promulgate the 2024 Amended Rules or its
validity, we hold that the revised eligibility criteria introduced therein
cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process initiated under
the Advertisement No. 13, as doing so would amount to altering the
rules of the game after the recruitment process has commenced.
59. Our attention has been drawn to the judgements of this Court in
‘Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. (2017)
1 SCC 350’ and ‘V. Lavanya and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2017) 1 SCC 322’, but those judgements relate to interpretation of
power of relaxation in TET under para 9 of the NCTE Guidelines
dated 11.02.2011. Those judgments have no bearing or applicability
in the facts and circumstances of this case. The other judgements
cited by the learned counsel for the parties are not directly applicable
on the facts of the present case, hence are not being dealt with to
burden the judgement.
60. The private respondents have relied upon the judgement in ‘State of
Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakroborty and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 646’
and ‘V. Lavanya and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 1 SCC
322’ to argue that mere expansion of zone of consideration without
changing the eligibility criteria and without excluding candidates, is
permissible under the law. Reference has also been made to the
judgements in ‘Bank of India v. Aarya K. Babu, (2019) 8 SCC 587’
and ‘Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff Selection Committee, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1472’ to argue that change of eligibility criteria after the
issuance of the notification can be done provided that wide publicity is
made of such a change and opportunity is given to similarly situated
candidates to participate and compete with the others. In the facts
of this case and in view of the Constitution Bench judgement in
Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). It is not necessary to again reiterate
the issue.
1982 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
61. From the above discussions, in our view, it is clear that the directions
issued by the High Court is amounting to change in eligibility criteria
in the ongoing recruitment process. In addition, in the facts, the
concession given by the Advocate General was contrary to the
stand of the State Government which is unconscionable, unjustified
and unfair. We are not inclined to accept the contentions of the
respondents and the same are repelled. The question Nos. (ii) and
(iii) are answered accordingly.
62. During pendency of these appeals, I.A. No. 197527/2024 has been
filed by the appellants seeking declaration that the 2024 Amended
Rules are ultra-vires to the RTE Act. As per the discussions made
hereinabove, we are not expressing any view in regard to the ultra-
vires of the amended rules since they are not under challenge before
the High Court or before this Court. However, our judgment would
apply only with respect to the question posited to answer. We make
it clear that if vires of the 2024 Amended Rules is assailed before
appropriate forum by the parties, it may be looked into on its own
merit uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.
63. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the appellants are allowed
with the following directions: -
(i) The 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 No. 13 stands set-aside;
(ii) The JTET holders who were possessing the requisite
qualification under the 2022 Recruitment Rules, prior to the 2024
Amendment and participated shall be eligible for appointment
and their result be declared forthwith and the appointments be
made strictly on merit;
(iii) We make it clear that CTET holders or STET 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 No. 13/2023.
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1983
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. I have gone through the well-reasoned opinion expressed by brother
J.K. Maheshwari, J. I fully endorse the views expressed and the
answers to three questions as framed in paragraph ‘26’ of the judgment.
2. As the case pertains to selection of Assistant Teachers, I wish to
add a few lines regarding importance of their role in nation building.
They are to teach in Primary and Upper Primary Schools i.e. upto
Class VIII. The role played by a teacher, especially when dealing
with students in primary schools, is of utmost importance. Teachers
educate the young minds, much like sculptors shaping clay, to mould
them into better human beings. The imprint a teacher leaves on the
minds of their students is everlasting.
3. The status of a teacher is well said in the Sanskrit verse taken from
Guru Gita which is said to be part of Visvasaratantra from Uttarakhand
of Skandapurana. The same is reproduced hereunder:
“Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu, Gurur Devo Maheshwara;
Guru Sakshat Param Brahma, Tasmai Shri Gurave Namah”
This Shloka refers to the Guru as none other than Brahma–
The creator, Vishnu– The sustainer and Shiva– The
destroyer, since the Guru creates, sustains knowledge and
destroys ignorance. By doing so he liberates the disciple
from the ocean of samsara, from the trap of Maya, thereby
attaining Moksha. For this, we bow down with utter humility
and total gratitude to the Guru.
(Source: Guru Gita which is said to be part of
Visvasaratantra from Uttarakhand of Skandapurana)
4. On number of occasions the importance of role of teachers was
highlighted by this Court. In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v.
Director of School Education, (1989) 1 SCC 392 this Court opined
that a teacher should have the quality to inspire and motivate his
students. Relevant para thereof is extracted as under:
“20. ……. Though teaching is the last choice in the job
market, the role of teachers is central to all processes
1984 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of formal education. The teacher alone could bring out
the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is
the “engine” of the educational system. He is a principal
instrument in awakening the child to cultural values.
He needs to be endowed and energised with needed
potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him.
His quality should be such as would inspire and motivate
into action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of
everchanging conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden
and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous
tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national
ideas in younger minds. His involvement in national
integration is more important, indeed indispensable.”
5. The observations made by this Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435, pertaining to the
role of a teacher are extracted hereunder:
“12. ….… The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding
the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for
educational excellence in impressive young children.
Formal education needs proper equipping of the teachers
to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with
latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and
rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the
needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in
their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava,
next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to
awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual
excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must
keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of
the society and to cope up with the psychological approach
to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role.
In short teachers need to be endowed and energised
with needed potential to serve the needs of the society.
The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools
would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit
of the students. For equipping such trainee students in
a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are
absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have
no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1985
Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon.
Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the
mode of education and examining system are detrimental
to the efficient management of the education.”
6. In Sushmita Basu & Ors. vs. Ballygunge Siksha Samity (2006)
7 SCC 680, this Court again had occasion to deal with the pivotal
role played by the teachers in moulding the lives of students at their
primitive age and sacrifice they are required to make. Relevant para
thereof is extracted hereunder:
“5. We must remember that the profession of teaching is
a noble profession. It is not an employment in the sense
of it being merely an earner of bread and butter. A teacher
fulfils a great role in the life of the nation. He is the “guru”.
It is the teacher, who moulds its future citizens by imparting
to his students not only knowledge, but also a sense of
duty, righteousness and dedication to the welfare of the
nation, in addition to other qualities of head and heart.…….
A teacher’s profession calls for a little sacrifice in the
interests of the nation. The main asset of a teacher is his
students, former and present. Teachers who have lived
up to ideals are held in great esteem by their disciples.
The position of the guru, the teacher, in our ethos is equal
to that of God (Matha Pitha Guru Daivam). The teachers
of today must ensure that this great Indian concept and
the reverential position they hold, is not sacrificed at the
altar of avarice.”
7. The importance of a teacher as narrated by Pandit Mohan Malaviya
(the founder of the Banaras Hindu University) was highlighted in the
following lines:
“… It lies largely in his teacher’s hand to mould the mind
of the child who I father of the man. If he is patriotic and
devoted to the national cause and realizes his responsibility,
he can produce a race of patriotic men and women who
would religiously place the country above the community
and national gain above communal advantage.”
8. We have passed through COVID-19 pandemic. Computer and elec-
tronic gadgets such as mobile phones, tablets/I-pads, desktops which
1986 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
were prohibited to be used by the students of elementary classes,
to some extent became the necessity overnight as that was the only
medium which kept various systems including education, continue.
9. Social media has also 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. Lot of
information is available on various web portals, how to differentiate
between the right or wrong is the moot question. It is the duty of
the teacher to guide the students as to how to make a distinction.
10. The positive and negative applications of artificial intelligence are
being experienced by everyone today. Not only the illiterate or semi-
literate individuals but also well-educated people fall victim to various
cyber-crimes. In this context, the role of teachers becomes crucial, as
they can guide students on the dos and don’ts of use of technology.
11. It is a matter of fact that whenever a student learns something, the
family also learns as a consequence, especially in cases where the
parents may be illiterate or semi-literate.
12. 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.
13. In the case in hand from the selection stage only, the candidates
for the post of Assistant Teachers have been made to indulge in
litigation, which should be avoided and for that matter for all kinds
of services. This will enable the employees to concentrate more on
their job than the litigation.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Central Teacher Eligibility Test"Sign in to search