Supreme Court Restored JTET Requirement and Set Aside High Court’s Concession Allowing CTET/STET Candidates

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard appeals challenging a Jharkhand High Court order that had permitted CTET and neighbouring States’ STET qualified residents to participate in an ongoing recruitment for Assistant Teachers under Advertisement No. 13/2023. The appeals arose out of Special Leave Petitions relating to two sets of appellants who had qualified the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) and contested the High Court’s direction permitting CTET/STET candidates to be considered for primary and upper primary teacher vacancies.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgment of 20.12.2023 that recorded an oral concession by the Advocate General and enlarged the zone of consideration to include CTET/STET holders. The Court held that the recruitment process commenced on the date of the advertisement (19.07.2023) and that the eligibility criteria notified at that time — namely passing the JTET as prescribed by the 2022 Recruitment Rules — governed the selection. The judgment described the High Court’s reliance on an oral concession as unconscionable and concluded that the State could not change the “rules of the game” mid‑way. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;” The Court further declared that the High Court’s direction recording that “the State is willing to relax the criteria for eligibility” could not cure the absence of a prior conscious policy decision by the State and therefore could not stand.

Background The dispute arose when CTET-qualified residents and an aspirant’s mother filed writ petitions seeking either that the State conduct JTET or that CTET/STET-qualified candidates be permitted in the recruitment process for 13,000 Assistant Teacher vacancies advertised by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. The RTE Act and NCTE Guidelines required TET conducted by the “appropriate Government” and para 10(b) of the NCTE Guidelines permitted a State school to “consider eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET Certificate awarded by another State/UT” and, in specified circumstances, to consider CTET if the State had “decided not to conduct a TET.” The State’s counter‑affidavit before the High Court maintained that JTET had not been conducted for several years and that the State had not decided not to conduct JTET; it therefore opposed recognizing CTET for state recruitment. Notwithstanding that stand, the High Court recorded an oral concession by the Advocate General and directed that CTET/STET residents be allowed to participate, subject to a stipulation that successful appointees obtain JTET “within a period of three years.” Pursuant to the High Court order and subsequent State amendments, the JSSC reopened applications and the State amended recruitment rules in January 2024 to incorporate the relaxation. The Supreme Court stayed declaration of results and, after hearing, concluded that the alteration of eligibility during the ongoing process was arbitrary and contrary to settled law.

The Court set aside the High Court order permitting CTET/STET candidates to participate, directed that results and appointments be declared only for JTET-qualified candidates who met the eligibility on the date of the advertisement, and held that CTET/STET applicants who applied after the High Court order or after the 2024 rule amendment would not be eligible for recruitment under Advertisement No. 13/2023. The Court refrained from expressing any view on the vires of the 2024 amended Rules, noting that such challenge could be entertained separately on its merits.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4194 & 4195 of 2024 (Civil Appeals of 2025) Case Title: Parimal Kumar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.; Gurcharan Mahto & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Counsel (appearing in lead proceedings) (other counsel not specified in judgment) For the Respondent(s): Advocate General, State of Jharkhand (name not specified); State counsels (other appearances as recorded in proceedings)