1. Recruitment for Assistant Teachers — Dispute over eligibility criteria — Requirement of State Teacher Eligibility Test versus Central or other State Teacher Eligibility Tests — RTE Act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 255
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Parimal Kumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1297 of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4194 of 2024]
WITH
Gurucharan Mahto and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4195 of 2024
Decided On : 30-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nring Chamwbo Zeliang, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Fertiyal, Adv. Mr. Niranjan M., Adv. Ms. Mallika Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kohli, Adv. Mr. Raj Shukla, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha , AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. V Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv. Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. Ms. Oishi Das, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Raj, Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Mr. Yashas J, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Tushar Arora, Adv. Ms. Vivya Ngpal, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nring Chamwbo Zeliang, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Fertiyal, Adv. Mr. Niranjan M., Adv. Ms. Mallika Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Pushkar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kohli, Adv. Mr. Raj Shukla, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha , AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. V Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv. Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. Ms. Oishi Das, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Murshlin Ansari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Raj, Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Radhika Jalan, Adv. Mr. Yashas J, Adv. Ms. Widaphi Lyngdoh, Adv. Ms. Anchita Nayyar, Adv. Ms. Shefali Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Tushar Arora, Adv. Ms. Vivya Ngpal, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv.
Eligibility criteria for teacher recruitment cannot be altered mid-way during the process, ensuring fairness and adherence to established rules.
Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Section 23 - National Council for Teacher Education Guidelines - Para 10 - Teacher Eligibility Test - Eligibility criteria for appointment of teachers - High Court allowed CTET and STET holders to participate in recruitment despite existing rules mandating JTET qualification - The State's decision to relax eligibility criteria was deemed arbitrary and contrary to law. (Paras 3, 16, 62)
(B) Recruitment Process - Commencement and eligibility criteria - Recruitment process begins with advertisement; eligibility criteria cannot be altered mid-way - The High Court's direction to allow CTET and STET holders was found to violate established legal principles. (Paras 26, 62)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a High Court judgment permitting CTET and STET qualified candidates to participate in the recruitment process for Assistant Teachers in Jharkhand, despite the requirement of JTET qualification as per the 2022 Recruitment Rules. The appellants, who are JTET holders, challenged this decision. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the High Court's judgment allowing CTET and STET holders to participate in the recruitment process was arbitrary and contrary to the established eligibility criteria under the 2022 Recruitment Rules. The Court emphasized that eligibility criteria cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced. (Paras 62, 63)
Issues: The main issues were whether the eligibility criteria could be altered after the commencement of the recruitment process and whether the State had the authority to relax the minimum qualifications mandated by the RTE Act. (Paras 26, 62)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered mid-way during the process, as it undermines the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. The State's relaxation of eligibility criteria was not in accordance with the law. (Paras 62, 63)
Result: Appeals allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- education law
- constitutional law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Whether State Government can relax minimum qualifications mid-recruitment — Validity of accepting Central or other State Teacher Eligibility Tests — Power of relaxation under RTE Act versus NCTE Guidelines. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. State cannot arbitrarily alter eligibility criteria after advertisement — Concession by Advocate General not a conscious policy decision — NCTE Guidelines do not permit mid-process changes. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
4. Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered after the process commences from the date of advertisement unless permitted by extant rules and meeting non-arbitrariness tests. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 )
5. High Court judgment set aside — Only candidates possessing the State Teacher Eligibility Test as per original recruitment rules are eligible for appointment. (Para 63 )
6. Can eligibility criteria be changed after the recruitment process starts?
No, eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of the recruitment process (the date of advertisement) cannot be changed midway unless the extant rules or the advertisement permit such a change, and any such change must satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 52 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 )
7. When can a State consider Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) for state school recruitment?
Under NCTE Guidelines, a State may consider CTET certificates for eligibility in state-run schools only if the State Government has taken a conscious decision not to conduct its own Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). (Para 7 , 40 , 47 , 48 )
8. Who has the power to relax minimum qualifications for teachers under the RTE Act?
Under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, the Central Government may, by notification, relax minimum qualifications for a period not exceeding five years if the State lacks adequate training institutions or qualified teachers are not available in sufficient numbers. (Para 25 , 46 , 49 )
9. Does a concession by the Advocate General in court constitute a valid change in recruitment policy?
No, a concession given by the Advocate General based on oral instructions, especially when contrary to the State's written stand in affidavits, does not amount to a conscious policy decision and cannot be used to disturb an ongoing recruitment process. (Para 43 , 61 )
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 education and the paramount role of teachers in today’s day and age cannot be underplayed.
3. The instant appeals arise out of the judgment 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.
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.
(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 eligib
