LexPARIMAL KUMAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.