The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35266-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6658 of 2025 1. Amit Kumar, son of Arjun Prasad Mahto, resident of Village- Mangartilaiya, P.O.- Atki, P.S.- Pirtand, Dist.- Giridih. 2. Mohan Mahto, son of Gendlal Mahto, resident of Village- Badganwa, P.O.- Sobaranpur, P.S.- Pirtand, Dist.- Giridih. ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director of Primary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director of Secondary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through the Secretary, Ranchi. 6. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi. 7. The National Council for Teachers Education, through its Member Secretary, Delhi. ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners: For the JSSC: For the NCTE: ----- Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate ----- 02/26.11.2025 This writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs: “a. To hold and declare that the Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022 is ultra vires to the Notification F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23.08.2010, as amended vide Notification F. No. 61- 1/2011/NCTE(N&S) dated 29.07.2011, of the NCTE inasmuch as it does not provide relaxation in the qualifying marks in the prescribed academic qualifications to the reserved category candidates such as SC/ST/OBC/PH and the same amounts to arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India; b. To hold and declare that the Advertisement No. 13/2023 floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) is ultra vires to the Notification F. No. 61-03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 1 2025:JHHC:35266-DB 23.08.2010, as amended vide Notification F. No. 61- 1/2011/NCTE(N&S) dated 29.07.2011, of the NCTE inasmuch as it does not provide relaxation in the qualifying marks in the prescribed academic qualifications to the reserved category candidates such as SC/ST/OBC/PH and the same amounts to arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15(4), 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India; c. To hold and declare that the entire recruitment process carried out pursuant to the Advertisement No. 13/2023 and the Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022 is illegal, unconstitutional and not maintainable in the eyes of law; d. To quash and set aside all the appointments of the "Intermediate Trained Sahayak Acharya (Class I to V)" and "Graduate Trained Sahayak Acharya (Class VI to VIII)" made pursuant to the Advertisement No. 13/2023 and the Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022; e. Pass an interim order staying all the appointments of the "Intermediate Trained Sahayak Acharya (Class I to V)" and "Graduate Trained Sahayak Acharya (Class VI to VIII)" made pursuant to the Advertisement No. 13/2023 and the Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022 till final disposal of the instant writ petition.” 2. It is not in dispute that 5% relaxation for the SC/ST/OBC/PH, as sought by the petitioners, has not been provided for in Advertisement No. 13/2023 dated 19.07.2023 and the petitioner would therefore rely upon the notification issued subsequent to the Advertisement No. 13/2023 on 29.01.2024 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) whereby the Sahayak Acharya Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2022’] have been amended and under Rule 8 thereunder, the provision for 5% relaxation in minimum cut-off marks for the SC/ST/BC-I/BC-II and differently abled persons has now been provided. 2 2025:JHHC:35266-DB 3. Evidently, an identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (C) No. 4194 of 2024 (Primal Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confronted with this very advertisement i.e. Advertisement No. 13/2023 issued on 19.07.2023 and eligibility criteria therein were set out as the Rules, 2022 by which the candidates must have passed the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand. However, this Court, in another writ petition, had issued direction accepting the CTET and STET as eligibility which incidentally was again contained in the same notification as herein dated 29.01.2024, which was contrary to the existing rules. After the impugned judgment, the examination was postponed until 10.02.2024 and the applications were called from the residents of the State of Jharkhand, who were possessing CTET/STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 as per the notice dated 10.01.2024. The amendments in the Rules, 2022, as have been made in the instant case, were brought on 29.01.2024 with an intent of giving statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court came to a categorical conclusion that the rules of the game could not be changed mid-way and it was categorically held that the State had no power to amend/alter/change the eligibility criteria, especially when it was notified on the date of issuance of the advertisement. Unless the extant rules permitted to do so, the rules should not be amended. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in paragraph nos. 57, 58 and 63 which read as under: ”57. In the present case, undisputedly, the Advertisement No. 13 was issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per 2022 Recruitment Rules. By which the candidates must have passed Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand. On the date of pronouncement of impugned judgment, those rules were in
Legal Reasoning
vogue, even then, the High Court issued the direction accepting the 3 2025:JHHC:35266-DB CTET and STET as eligibility contrary to the existing rules. After the impugned judgment, the examination was postponed until 10.02.2024. Applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possession CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 as per notice dated 10.01.2024. The amendments in 2022 Recruitment Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process. Later, the amendment in the advertisement was made. Thus, it is clear that on the date of advertisement, as per prevailing rules, the eligibility criteria were changed. In our considered opinion, this is amounting to change the rules of game after the game has begun as settled in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra). Therefore, the entire action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary to the law settled by this Court. 58. Considering the above, we do not find much strength in this argument. The import of clause 5(i) of the advertisement is merely that the eligibility of the candidate participating in the recruitment process shall be reckoned on the last date of submission of applications. It does not empower the State to amend/alter/change the eligibility criteria specially when it has been notified on the date of issuance of the advertisement, unless the extant Rules permit to do so, which is evidently not the case here. To put it in another way, applying the ratio as laid down in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra), the State could not have changed the eligibility criteria as laid down after the point of time of issuance of the advertisement, in the absence of any power in the relevant recruitment rules or the advertisement to give effect to such a change. Without expressing any opinion on the State’s authority to promulgate the 2024 Amended Rules or its
Decision
validity, we hold that the revised eligibility criteria introduced therein cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process initiated under the Advertisement No. 13, as doing so would amount to altering the rules of the game after the recruitment process has commenced. 63. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with the following directions:— (i) The impugned judgment of the High Court permitting the candidates of CTET and STET holders of neighbouring States to 4 2025:JHHC:35266-DB participate in ongoing selection process to the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary and Upper Primary schools pursuant to Advertisement No. 13 stands set-aside; (ii) The JTET holders who were possessing the requisite qualification under the 2022 Recruitment Rules, prior to the 2024 Amendment and participated shall be eligible for appointment and their result be declared forthwith and the appointments be made strictly on merit; (iii) We make it clear that CTET holders or STET holders, who have applied after the judgment of the High Court or after amendment in the rules or advertisement would not be eligible for the recruitment in furtherance to the Advertisement No. 13/2023. (iv) Ordered accordingly.” 5. Bare perusal of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly go to indicate that in sum and substance the petitioners are seeking change of the rules of the game mid-way i.e. after issuance of the advertisement that too by relying upon the notification issued subsequently by the State Government on 19.01.2024, which as already observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not at all applicable to the selection process commenced pursuant to Advertisement No.13/2023 dated 19.07.2023. 6. Clearly, in such circumstances, this writ petition is totally misconceived apart from being not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 26th November, 2025 Satish/RKM Uploaded on 28.11.2025 (TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J) 5