Supreme Court Bars Mid-Recruitment Changes to Eligibility Rules for Teachers in Jharkhand

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the case titled PARIMAL KUMAR v. THE State of JHARKHAND (2025 INSC 134), dealt with a significant issue regarding whether eligibility criteria for teacher recruitment could be changed after the recruitment process had already begun. The dispute involved candidates who had cleared the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) and those who held either the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) or neighboring states’ State Teacher Eligibility Test (STET) qualifications.

The appellants (JTET-qualified teachers) challenged a High Court of Jharkhand decision that allowed CTET and STET-qualified candidates to participate in an ongoing recruitment process in the state for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary and Upper Primary). The recruitment advertisement prescribed JTET as a mandatory qualification, yet the High Court, based on a concession by the State Advocate General, permitted CTET and STET holders to apply, subject to certain conditions.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that such an alteration in eligibility criteria, made after the advertisement was issued and recruitment had begun, was impermissible and amounted to a “change in the rules of the game” mid-way. The Court’s decision provides a definitive and stringent interpretation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) guidelines, and the overarching principle of equal opportunity in public employment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s directions to include CTET and STET-qualified candidates under the same recruitment advertisement, and upheld the original eligibility requirement—namely, passing JTET before applying. The main findings can be summarized as follows:

• Advertisement and Eligibility: The recruitment advertisement (No. 13 of 2023) required JTET as a minimum eligibility criterion. Though the State later amended its rules (2024 Amended Rules) to accommodate CTET/STET holders during the ongoing process, the Supreme Court held that such a move was impermissible after the recruitment had already commenced.
• State’s Concession: The Court highlighted that the State’s concession (through the Advocate General) before the High Court was contrary to its affidavit and earlier policy statements. This concession was insufficient to validate the mid-process rule change.
• NCTE Guidelines and Relaxation Power: While the NCTE guidelines do allow the State to accept CTET/STET in some cases, this must be done before starting the recruitment process, or else it unfairly alters the selection conditions. Further, Section 23(2) of the RTE Act confers relaxation powers on the Central Government, not unilaterally on the State.
• Final Disposition: The Court annulled the High Court’s order that authorized CTET/STET-qualified candidates to participate. Only those candidates meeting the original JTET requirement at the time of advertisement would be eligible to proceed.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court’s decision draws heavily on key precedents that emphasize the principle of not altering the rules in ongoing recruitment:

1. N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157:
   This precedent establishes that recruitment conditions cannot be modified once the process starts, ensuring fairness to all applicants who applied under the original rules.
2. P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC 541:
   Reinforces that a stringent adherence to published eligibility criteria is essential to avoid arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
3. Assam PSC v. Pranjal Kumar Sarma (2020) 20 SCC 680 & DEVESH SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 SCC OnLine SC 985):
   These cases reiterate the impermissibility of changing selection norms mid-way through the process, safeguarding the legitimate expectations of the candidates.
4. Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., 2024 INSC 847 (Constitution Bench):
   The Court specifically referenced this seminal judgment. It enunciates the rule that recruitment begins with the advertisement and ends when vacancies are filled. Any alteration of eligibility criteria in the middle of the process is invalid unless specifically allowed by the original advertisement or the extant statutes (and even then must pass the test of non-arbitrariness).

B. Legal Reasoning

The legal reasoning pivoted on two main pillars: (1) maintaining procedural fairness during the recruitment process and (2) interpreting the framework of the RTE Act, the NCTE guidelines, and the State’s own recruitment rules in harmony.

1. Requirement of Fairness and Equal Opportunity:
   The Court underscored that changing eligibility criteria after an advertisement deprives potentially eligible individuals of a fair chance to apply and violates the principle of equal opportunity in public employment. Those who did not possess JTET might have applied originally had the rules allowed CTET or STET at the outset; conversely, some may have been discouraged from applying. This denies all candidates a “level playing field,” contravening Article 16 of the Constitution.
2. Interpretation of Section 23(2) of RTE Act:
   Section 23(2) enables the Central Government (and not the State) to relax minimum eligibility qualifications in certain scenarios, such as a shortage of eligible teachers. The Court noted that no such valid notification by the Central Government existed here to relax the requirement of JTET.
3. NCTE Guidelines (2011) and “Appropriate Government” Clause:
   Paragraph 10 of the 2011 guidelines requires a conscious decision not to conduct a State TET. Only then may CTET or STET holders be considered for local school recruitment. The State Government had not taken any such decision at or before the issuance of the advertisement, so the post-facto concession violated well-established NCTE guidelines.
4. Role of Concession by an Advocate General:
   The Court held that a concession made by the Advocate General, contrary to the State’s official affidavit stating a different position, was neither binding nor valid. A sudden shift in stand—absent a formal policy or rule—did not override the earlier requirements and disclaimers.

C. Potential Impact

The ruling has wide-reaching implications:

• State-Level Teacher Recruitment: States must now meticulously decide on whether to allow CTET or other states’ TET qualifications before the recruitment advertisement is published. If the State TET is mandatory in the rules, that cannot be changed willy-nilly post-advertisement.
• Procedural Consistency: This judgment serves as a strong reminder that mid-process rule changes create procedural inconsistencies. Future recruitment authorities must carefully finalize all relevant criteria beforehand.
• Fairness in Public Employment: The Supreme Court championed the principle that candidates develop “legitimate expectations” based on existing advertisements. Recruitment bodies must remain cognizant of constitutional mandates ensuring fair competition and equal opportunity.
• National Policy Implications: Since TET is a crucial aspect of teacher eligibility across India, other states may also revisit their approach to reconciling CTET with local TET requirements in light of this authoritative judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. TET (Teachers Eligibility Test):
   A TET test acts as a benchmark examination that central or state governments conduct to certify that a candidate possesses the minimum skill and knowledge to teach students from Class I to Class VIII. Under the RTE Act and NCTE guidelines, passing a TET (Central or State) is a statutory minimum qualification for appointment as a teacher in elementary schools.
2. Section 23(2) of the RTE Act:
   This provision empowers the Central Government to relax teacher qualification requirements if a particular state is unable to conduct TET or secure enough qualified teachers. However, unless the Central Government formally grants such relaxation via a notification, a state cannot independently waive or alter TET requirements post-advertisement.
3. Recruitment Rules and “Rules of the Game” Principle:
   When any government body issues a job advertisement, the eligibility terms at that time are the “rules of the game.” Once that game starts, you cannot unilaterally change the rules because it would hamper fairness and create confusion for all participating candidates.
4. Advertisement as Commencement of Recruitment:
   Legally, recruitment is deemed to start the moment an official advertisement is published. Any new rule inserted after this date, if detrimental or beneficial to certain groups selectively, would be considered a “mid-stream change” and invalid unless expressly provided for in the rules themselves.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in PARIMAL KUMAR v. THE State of JHARKHAND (2025 INSC 134) clarifies that a State cannot alter eligibility conditions after initiating the recruitment process, particularly for something as fundamental as the Teacher Eligibility Test requirement. The Court placed strong emphasis on preserving fairness, transparency, and the legitimate expectations of aspirants.

For Jharkhand, the impact is immediate: only JTET-qualified teachers validly applied for the ongoing recruitment under Advertisement No. 13 of 2023. CTET or STET holders cannot be deemed eligible mid-process unless the rules had expressly provided for such recognition before the advertisement. More broadly, states must harmonize their teacher recruitment processes with NCTE guidelines and the RTE Act, ensuring that changes to qualification standards—if any—are straightforward and introduced well before advertising new posts.

In a judgment filled with references to the importance of teachers in shaping young minds, the Supreme Court also underlined that the role of judiciary is to protect the sanctity and transparency of public recruitment processes. This ruling thus stands as a guiding beacon for future cases involving eligibility amendments during ongoing selection drives, reinforcing that procedural fairness prevails above all.