Rules of game changed after the game has begun: SC sets aside Jharkhand HC order allowing CTET & STET candidates in recruitment process for assistant teachers

03/02/2025

NEW DELHI, Feb 2: The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the Jharkhand High Court that had permitted CTET and STET qualified candidates to participate in the recruitment process for Assistant Teachers in Primary and Upper Primary Schools in Jharkhand.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) qualified candidates challenging the Jharkhand High Court's decision which allowed residents of Jharkhand who had cleared Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or the neighbouring states' Teacher Eligibility Test (STET) to participate in the recruitment process under the Advertisement.
A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal held "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…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."
Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and V Mohana represented the Appellants, while AOR Tulika Mukherjee appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The CTET qualified candidates had filed a Petition before the High Court 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 CTET candidates that the State of Jharkhand conducted the last JTET in the year 2016 and since then failed to conduct JTET. This 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.
The High Court allowed their participation, directing that they must clear JTET within three years of appointment while also stating that if the government failed to conduct JTET within three years, such candidates would not be removed from service.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court referred to the Judgement of the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court whereby the 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 Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) also clarified that the recruitment process commences from the date of issuance of the advertisement and concludes with the filling up of notified vacancies.
The Court, in the present case, therefore held, "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."
Consequently, the Court held that "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."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Parimal Kumar & Ors v. The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 134)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and V Mohana; Advocates Abhishek Kumar Singh, Nring Chamwbo Zeliang, Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Jyoti Fertiyal, Niranjan M, Amritansh Vats, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra and Shivani Vij, et al; AOR Siddhartha Sinha and Sahil Bhalaik
Respondents: AOR Tulika Mukherjee, Pallavi Langar and Mandeep Kalra; Advocates Manoj Kumar, Deepak Raj, Vaibhav Yadav, Anushna Satapathy, Radhika Jalan, Yashas J, Widaphi Lyngdoh, Anchita Nayyar, Shefali Tripathi, Tushar Arora, Vivya Ngpal and Ekansh Bansal.

Share This Story


Comment On This Story

 

Photo Gallery

  
BSE Sensex
NSE Nifty