PARIMAL KUMAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. (30/01/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

The Supreme Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court direction, based on the Advocate General's oral concession, that let CTET holders and holders of neighbouring States' TET take part in an ongoing recruitment of Assistant Teachers advertised with JTET as the essential qualification. It held this was a change in eligibility after the recruitment had begun, contrary to Tej Prakash Pathak. The 2024 amended rules could not be applied to that recruitment, and results of eligible JTET holders were to be declared. Rajesh Bindal, J. concurred, adding observations on the role of teachers.

Issues

Whether, on 19.07.2023 when Advertisement No. 13 was issued, the private respondents had the minimum qualification (JTET) required by the 2022 Recruitment Rules.
Whether the High Court's interim order and judgment, based on the Advocate General's concession, changed the rules of the game after the recruitment process had commenced.
How far the State could change eligibility under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act and para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, and whether the concession fell within those limits.
Whether a clause fixing the last date for applications as the reference date for qualifications allowed the State to alter eligibility criteria mid-way.

Provisions considered

Section 23(1) and (2), Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009Under Section 23(1), minimum qualifications are those laid down by the academic authority (NCTE), which include passing a TET conducted by the appropriate Government. Under Section 23(2), only the Central Government may relax qualifications by notification, for up to five years, where trained teachers are inadequate. No such notification or request by the State was on record; the Court left open whether only the Centre can relax, since that question was not raised in the High Court. (¶¶ 46, 47, 49, 50, 51)
Section 2(n)(i) and (ii), Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009The definition of 'school' identifies the State and aided schools to which a TET conducted by the State applies under para 10(b) of the NCTE Guidelines. For such schools, passing the State TET was essential on the date the recruitment began. (¶¶ 8, 40, 47, 50)
Para 10(b), NCTE Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test dated 11.02.2011A State school has discretion to accept another State's TET, but it may consider the Central TET only if the State has decided not to conduct its own TET. That decision must be a conscious one taken before the recruitment begins, not after the advertisement or on a court's direction. Jharkhand had taken no such decision and had said so on affidavit. (¶¶ 7, 40, 47, 48, 51)
Rule 3(d) and 3(f)(i)(b), (ii)(b), Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022 (Jharkhand)These rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309, made passing the JTET conducted by the Government of Jharkhand an essential qualification. They were in force when the advertisement was issued and when the High Court decided, so its direction ran contrary to them. (¶¶ 27, 28, 32, 57)
Amended Rule 3, Jharkhand Primary School Assistant Teacher Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2024The amendment of 29.01.2024 made Jharkhand residents holding CTET or STET eligible, subject to clearing JTET within three years. Without ruling on its validity, the Court held it could not be applied to the recruitment already begun under Advertisement No. 13. (¶¶ 18, 57, 58, 62)
Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaApplying Tej Prakash Pathak, eligibility criteria cannot be altered after recruitment begins unless the rules or advertisement permit it, and even a permitted change must be non-arbitrary under Article 14. A mid-way change denies equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16. (¶¶ 52, 54, 55, 57)

Held

The recruitment process began with the advertisement on 19.07.2023, when the 2022 Rules required intermediate or graduate qualification plus JTET. Nothing showed that the members of the respondent association, or the child of the respondent mother, held JTET, so they lacked the prescribed qualification on that date. (¶¶ 27, 28, 32, 33, 34)
Neither the advertisement nor the 2022 Rules was challenged in the writ petitions. The High Court nevertheless directed that CTET and STET holders be admitted to the ongoing recruitment, contrary to the rules then in force, which was not in accordance with law. (¶¶ 24, 57)
The State had stated on affidavit that it had not decided against conducting the JTET and that admitting CTET holders would prejudice JTET holders. An Advocate General's oral concession made contrary to that stand does not communicate a conscious decision of the State. The State's shifting stand at every stage was arbitrary and unfair. (¶¶ 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 61)
Following Tej Prakash Pathak, recruitment begins with the advertisement. Eligibility criteria cannot be changed mid-way unless the extant rules or the advertisement permit it, and even a permitted change must satisfy Article 14. Admitting CTET and STET holders through the High Court's direction, the corrigendum and the 2024 amendment changed the rules of the game after it had begun. (¶¶ 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57)
A clause making the last date for applications the reference date for qualifications only fixes when a candidate's eligibility is tested. It gives no power to alter the eligibility criteria notified in the advertisement. (¶¶ 56, 58)
Without expressing any view on the validity of the 2024 Amended Rules, which were not under challenge, the Court held that their revised eligibility criteria cannot be applied to the recruitment under Advertisement No. 13; any challenge to their vires is to be decided on its own merits. (¶¶ 58, 62)
Vikas Sankhala and V. Lavanya concerned the power of relaxation under para 9 of the NCTE Guidelines and did not apply. In view of Tej Prakash Pathak, the cases on expanding the zone of consideration or on changes given wide publicity did not need separate consideration. (¶¶ 59, 60)

Result

Appeals allowed. The High Court judgment allowing CTET and neighbouring-State TET holders into the recruitment under Advertisement No. 13 was set aside. JTET holders qualified under the 2022 Rules who took part are eligible, and their results are to be declared forthwith with appointments strictly on merit. CTET or STET holders who applied after the High Court judgment or the amendments are not eligible for this recruitment.