Supreme Court Upholds JTET Requirement for Jharkhand Teachers: Parimal Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2025)

Date of the Judgment: 30 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 134

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari J., Rajesh Bindal J.

Can a State government change the eligibility criteria for teacher recruitment mid-process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the appointment of primary school teachers in Jharkhand. The core issue was whether the State could allow candidates who had not passed the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) to participate in the recruitment process. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the importance of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process and the eligibility criteria set at the start. The judgment was authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with a concurring opinion from Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case arose from a dispute regarding the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in primary and upper primary schools in Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand had advertised 13,000 vacancies, specifying that candidates must have passed the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET). However, some candidates who had passed the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or other State Teacher Eligibility Tests (STET) from neighboring states sought to participate in the recruitment process, arguing that the State had not conducted the JTET regularly. The High Court of Jharkhand permitted these candidates to participate, provided they cleared the JTET within three years. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by candidates who had cleared the JTET.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Jharkhand was approached by CTET qualified candidates seeking permission to participate in the teacher recruitment process due to the State’s failure to conduct the JTET regularly. The State argued that JTET was necessary for local language proficiency and that there were enough JTET-qualified candidates. Initially, the High Court directed the State to consider allowing CTET/STET candidates. Subsequently, the High Court, based on a concession from the Advocate General, allowed CTET/STET candidates to participate, provided they cleared the JTET within three years. This decision was appealed in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case is primarily based on the following:

• ✓ The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act):
  Section 23(1) of the RTE Act authorizes the ‘academic authority’ to lay down minimum qualifications for teachers.
  Section 23(2) allows the Central Government to relax minimum qualifications if a State lacks adequate training institutions or qualified teachers.
• ✓ National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Notifications and Guidelines:
  The NCTE was authorized as the academic authority to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. The NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribed the minimum qualifications for the post of teacher in Class I to Class VIII, including passing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
  The NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011 specified that both Central and State governments would conduct separate TETs. Para 10 of the guidelines states:
  
  “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; and
  (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 eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET Certificate awarded by another State/UT with legislature. In case a State Government/UT with legislature decides not to conduct a TET, a school at (i) and (ii) in that State/UT would consider the TET conducted by the Central Government.”
• ✓ Jharkhand Recruitment Rules:
  
  The ‘Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022’ mandate that candidates must qualify the JTET to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in Primary or Upper Primary Schools.

Arguments

Appellants (JTET Qualified Candidates):

• ✓ The State Government cannot relax the minimum qualifications set by NCTE; only the Central Government can do so under Section 23 of the RTE Act.
• ✓ JTET is better suited for Jharkhand schools as it tests local languages.
• ✓ There are sufficient JTET-qualified teachers in Jharkhand.
• ✓ Allowing under-qualified teachers (CTET/STET) will compromise education quality.
• ✓ The appellants had a legitimate expectation to be recruited based on their JTET qualification.
• ✓ The 2022 Recruitment Rules and Advertisement No. 13 mandate JTET as an eligibility criterion.
• ✓ Changing eligibility criteria mid-recruitment is unlawful.

Private Respondents (CTET/STET Qualified Candidates):

• ✓ The recruitment examination gives due weightage to the local language requirement.
• ✓ Para 10(b) of the NCTE Guidelines allows the State to recognize CTET/STET if it decides not to conduct TET.
• ✓ The appellants have no legitimate expectation as the rules were amended before the examination.
• ✓ Para 10 of the NCTE guidelines must be read with para 11, which mandates annual TET conduct by the State.

State of Jharkhand:

• ✓ The State’s decision to expand the zone of consideration is in line with NCTE guidelines.
• ✓ Eligibility should be reckoned on the last date of application submission.
• ✓ Para 10 of NCTE guidelines does not prohibit the State from considering CTET/STET candidates.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether, on commencement of the recruitment process on 19.07.2023, the private respondents or the appellants possessed the minimum qualification prescribed in the 2022 Recruitment Rules?
2. Whether the interim order dated 25.07.2023 and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court based on the concession of the Advocate General of the State, would amount to a change of rules of the game after the commencement of the recruitment process?
3. Whether, in terms of Section 23(2) of the 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 parameters?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• ✓ N.T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the argument that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ P.M. Latha Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the argument that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the argument that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ Assam PSC Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma and Ors., (2020) 20 SCC 680 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the argument that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan (2021) 17 SCC 141 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument.
• ✓ State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 646 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument that mere expansion of zone of consideration is permissible.
• ✓ Vikas Sankhala and Ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 350 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument that mere expansion of zone of consideration is permissible.
• ✓ V. Lavanya and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017) 1 SCC 322 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument that mere expansion of zone of consideration is permissible.
• ✓ Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument.
• ✓ Bank of India Vs. Aarya K. Babu (2019) 8 SCC 587 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument that change of eligibility criteria after the issuance of the notification can be done provided that wide publicity is made of such a change.
• ✓ Ankita Thakur Vs. HP Staff Selection Committee 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument that change of eligibility criteria after the issuance of the notification can be done provided that wide publicity is made of such a change.
• ✓ Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 799 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited by the respondents to support their argument.
• ✓ Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2024 INSC 847 (Supreme Court of India): This Constitution Bench judgment was used to clarify that eligibility criteria cannot be altered mid-way through the recruitment process.
• ✓ Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education, (1989) 1 SCC 392 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited regarding the importance of a teacher’s role in education.
• ✓ State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited regarding the importance of a teacher’s role in education.
• ✓ Sushmita Basu & Ors. vs. Ballygunge Siksha Samity (2006) 7 SCC 680 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited regarding the importance of a teacher’s role in education.

Legal Provisions:

• ✓ Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009: This section deals with the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers.
  • ✓ Section 23(1) states that any person possessing minimum qualifications laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.
  • ✓ Section 23(2) allows the Central Government to relax the minimum qualifications if a State does not have adequate training institutions or sufficient teachers with the minimum qualifications.
• ✓ Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011: This guideline deals with the applicability of the TET and states that a State may consider the TET certificate awarded by another State/UT, and may consider the TET conducted by the Central Government if the State decides not to conduct its own TET.
• ✓ ‘Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022’: These rules govern the service conditions for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in primary schools in the State of Jharkhand and mandate that candidates must qualify the JTET.

[TABLE] of Authority Consideration

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ N.T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ P.M. Latha Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 985*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ Assam PSC Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma and Ors., (2020) 20 SCC 680*: The Court followed this authority to emphasize that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun.
• ✓ Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2024 INSC 847*: The Court relied heavily on this Constitution Bench judgment to reiterate that eligibility criteria cannot be altered mid-way through the recruitment process.
• ✓ The other cases cited by the respondents were not found to be directly applicable in the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ Adherence to Rules: The Court emphasized the importance of following the established rules and procedures for recruitment. The 2022 Recruitment Rules and Advertisement No. 13 clearly mandated JTET as a minimum eligibility criterion.
• ✓ Maintaining the Integrity of the Recruitment Process: The Court held that changing the eligibility criteria mid-recruitment process is arbitrary and unfair. The recruitment process should be transparent and consistent.
• ✓ Importance of JTET: The Court recognized that JTET is specifically designed to assess the suitability of teachers for Jharkhand schools, including their proficiency in local languages.
• ✓ Limitations on State Government’s Power: The Court clarified that the State Government cannot relax the eligibility criteria in the manner it did. The power to relax minimum qualifications rests with the Central Government under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act.
• ✓ NCTE Guidelines: The Court interpreted the NCTE guidelines to mean that the State Government can consider CTET only if it has decided not to conduct its own TET, which was not the case here.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law RatioThe Supreme Court applied a strict interpretation of the law, particularly Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE guidelines, to the specific facts of the case. The Court held that the State could not relax the JTET requirement without a prior decision not to conduct the JTET. The Court’s decision was based on the following Fact:Law Ratio

Fact: The State of Jharkhand initiated a recruitment process for primary school teachers, specifying that candidates must have passed the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET). The High Court allowed CTET/STET candidates to participate, provided they cleared JTET within three years. The State amended the recruitment rules to include CTET/STET candidates.

Law: Section 23 of the RTE Act authorizes the Central Government to relax minimum qualifications, not the State Government, unless there is a lack of adequate training institutions or qualified teachers. The NCTE guidelines specify that a State can consider CTET only if it has decided not to conduct its own TET. The recruitment rules mandated that candidates must qualify the JTET.

Ratio: The Supreme Court held that the State could not relax the JTET requirement mid-recruitment, as this would violate the established rules and procedures. The Court emphasized that the power to relax eligibility criteria rests with the Central Government under Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, and the State did not meet the conditions to relax the JTET requirement. The Court also held that the State cannot change the rules of the game after the commencement of the recruitment process. The Court also emphasized that the JTET is specifically designed for Jharkhand schools, and the State did not demonstrate a shortage of JTET-qualified candidates.

Conclusion and Order

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and authorities, set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Jharkhand. The Court held that the State Government cannot alter the eligibility criteria mid-recruitment. The Court directed the State to proceed with the recruitment process based on the original advertisement (Advertisement No. 13/2023) which mandated JTET qualification. This means that only candidates who have passed JTET are eligible for recruitment as Assistant Teachers in primary schools in Jharkhand. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process and adhering to the established rules and procedures.

Flowchart of the Decision