Parimal Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 255

J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL
Parimal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

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.

Table of Content
1. high court judgment on eligibility (Para 2)
2. background of the case (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. rte act and ncte guidelines (Para 5)
4. high court's interim order (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. court's reasoning on eligibility (Para 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 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

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’ Teach

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 255

J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDALParimal Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

Cases Referred (16)

Related Judgments

Parimal Kumar VS State of Jharkhand - 2025 Supreme(SC) 255

Biplab Dutta son of Uttam Dutta vs State of Jharkhand - 2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2172

LAXMAN SINGH SAMANT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 3109

Abhishek Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Ramkumar Nirmalkar VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 76

Namita Diwan, D/o Shri Chandan Singh Diwan VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 269

Harikesh Mahto, Son of Dineshwar Mahto vs Union of India through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development - 2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2318

Rajendra Singh VS State Of Uttar Pradesh Through The Secretary Department Of Basic Education - 2024 Supreme(All) 686

Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late Shri Desh Raj VS State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh - 2021 Supreme(HP) 636

Director of School Education D. P. I. Campus, Chennai VS M. Velayutham - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 1799

Rajendra Singh Chotiya VS National Council For Teachers Education - 2021 Supreme(Raj) 1287

J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL
Parimal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent