2025 INSC 134 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4194 of 2024)

PARIMAL KUMAR & ORS. …..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4195 of 2024)

GURUCHARAN MAHTO & ORS. …..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari J.

1. Leave granted.

2.
Signature Not Verified To educate is not merely to impart information, but to instil
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.01.31

the ability to think critically, to inspire curiosity and to foster the

17:11:08 IST
Reason:

love of learning. By imparting knowledge and life skills, teachers

1
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 judgement 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’ Teacher Eligibility Test (the “STET”) to

participate in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant

Teacher in Primary and Upper Primary schools in the State of

Jharkhand in furtherance to Advertisement No. 13 of 2023. The

appellants have cleared the Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test (the

“JTET”) and are challenging the participation of the private

respondents in the said recruitment process.

4. In the present case, the dispute arose when private

respondents herein, i.e., the CTET qualified candidates filed Writ

Petition (PIL) No. 2785 of 2023 and other Writ Petitions being Writ

Petition (C) Nos. 5559/2022, 5697/2022 and 1936/2023 before

the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi seeking directions against

the State to either conduct the JTET or permit CTET qualified

candidates to participate in the recruitment process for the post of

2
Assistant Teacher. It was contended by the private respondents

herein (Petitioners therein) that the State of Jharkhand conducted

the last JTET in the year 2016 and since then failed to conduct

JTET. This has caused irreparable loss to thousands of eligible

aspirants who have been waiting for recruitment as teachers in

Jharkhand but have not been permitted to participate as they do

not possess JTET qualification. Before discussing the merits of the

case, it would be apposite to discuss the factual background which

culminated in the impugned judgment.

Factual Background –

5. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,

2009 (the “RTE Act”) came into force on 01.04.2010. Section 23(1)

thereof authorises the ‘academic authority’ to lay down minimum

qualifications required for any person to be eligible for

appointment as a teacher. The Central Government vide

Notification S.O. 750(E) dated 31.03.2010, authorized the National

Council for Teacher Education (the “NCTE”) as the academic

authority to prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post of

teacher.

3
6. NCTE issued the Notification F. No. 61-

03/20/2010/NCTE/(N&S) dated 23.08.2010 prescribing the

minimum qualifications for the post of teacher in Class I to Class

VIII in a school referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the RTE Act.

One of the minimum qualifications is passing Teachers Eligibility

Test (the “TET”) “conducted by the appropriate Government in

accordance with Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose”. It

is this requirement which is central to the present litigation.

7. On 11.02.2011, the NCTE issued the Guidelines for

conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under RTE Act. As per

para No. 10, the Central Government and State Government both

would conduct separate TETs, which shall make them eligible for

appointment in the schools specified therein. The said guideline is

relevant, hence reproduced as under –

“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

4
 (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.”

8. In reference to applicability of the guidelines, definitions as

contained in Section 2(a)(i), 2(n)(i) and 2(n)(ii) of RTE Act, 2009, are

also relevant, which are quoted herein under –

“2. Definitions –

(a) “appropriate government” means -

(i) in relation to a school established, owned or

controlled by the Central Government, or the
administrator of the Union territory, having no
legislature, the Central Government;

xx xx xx xx

(n) “school” means any recognised school imparting

elementary education and includes—

(i) a school established, owned or controlled by

the appropriate Government or a local authority;

(ii) an aided school receiving aid or grants to meet

whole or part of its expenses from the appropriate
Government or the local authority;”

9. The State of Jharkhand on 04.10.2019 came up with the

rules styled as ‘Jharkhand Teachers’ Eligibility Test 2019’ wherein

5
Rule 5 posited that to check the eligibility for appointment to the

post of teacher, the examination will be conducted every year by

the Jharkhand Academic Council or by the authority authorized

by the State Government in this behalf and the successful

candidates will be eligible for appointment in the Elementary

Schools (Primary/Higher Primary School).

10. The service conditions for appointment to the post of

Assistant Teacher in primary schools in the State of Jharkhand

are governed by the ‘Assistant Acharya Cadre (Appointment,

Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022’, (hereinafter

referred to as the “2022 Recruitment Rules”). Under these Rules,

one of the eligibilities for appointment to the post of Assistant

Teacher in Primary or Upper Primary Schools is that the candidate

should qualify “JTET”. Prior to these rules, the appointment to

the post of elementary school teachers was governed by the

Jharkhand Elementary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012

(the “2012 Rules”).

11. On 19.07.2023, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission

(the “JSSC”) advertised and notified 13,000 vacancies for the post

of Assistant Teachers vide Advertisement No. 13/2023 (the

“Advertisement No. 13”) and scheduled the ‘Jharkhand Primary

6
School Trained Assistant Teacher Combined Competitive

Examination 2023’. As per the Advertisement and the Recruitment

Rules, passing JTET is one of the eligibility for the candidates along

with other qualifications.

Proceedings before the High Court –

12. In the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2785 of 2023, filed by

Respondent No. 6 (an unregistered association of CTET holders)

and Respondent No. 7 (mother of one of the aspirants), the

directions were sought against the State to either conduct the

JTET or permit CTET qualified candidates to participate in the

selection process for primary and upper primary teachers.

13. The State of Jharkhand being respondent contested the claim

and in the counter-affidavit, inter-alia stated that the JTET could

not be conducted due to COVID-19 and the new rules to bring the

JTET at par with the quality and standard of CTET was in

progress. It was also contended that CTET is conducted to

determine the eligibility of teachers to be recruited in Central

Government Schools, thus it does not fulfil the needs and

requirements of the schools in the State of Jharkhand.

7
14. The High Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 directed the

State of Jharkhand to file an affidavit clarifying, whether the State

intends to allow the candidates who had cleared CTET or STET, to

participate in the recruitment process. The said order is relevant,

hence, quoted hereunder for ready reference –

“In course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ajit Kumar,

appearing for the petitioners in the lead case would draw the
attention of the Court to Clause 10 of the Guidelines for
conducting TET wherein it is provided at Sub Clause (b) that a
School referred to in Sub clause (i) and Sub clause (ii) mentioned
therein 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 we are of the opinion that if the State Government is
genuinely creating a number of posts for which State TET
examination is required to be conducted, which has not been held
for at least almost 9 (nine) years, i.e., last examination was held
in 2016, then it should take into consideration the said provision.

We advise the State to file a short affidavit stating whether they

intend to allow those candidates, who have obtained TET
Certificate from the Central Government or any other State / UT,
provided other conditions are fulfilled.

Let all these cases be listed on 18th August, 2023.”

15. In compliance, supplementary counter-affidavit was filed by

State contending that there are sufficient JTET qualified

8
candidates available in the State, and allowing CTET qualified

teachers to apply for the vacancies advertised will cause prejudice

to the rights of the JTET qualified candidates. Further, the CTET

or STET qualified candidates can be considered only if the State

Government ‘decides not to conduct TET’, however, ‘no such

decision’ has been taken.

16. The High Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.2023

allowed WP (PIL) No. 2785/2023 and batch, recorded the

‘concession’ of the Advocate General based on oral instructions,

contrary to the stand taken in the counter affidavit and

supplementary counter affidavit that the State had decided to relax

the eligibility criteria and was ready to permit the respondents and

other residents of Jharkhand having cleared CTET or STET to

participate in the ongoing process of recruitment vide

Advertisement No. 13, with the stipulation to clear the JTET in the

first available opportunity within three years. It was directed that

the candidates who would be appointed on the strength of CTET

or STET, would have to obtain JTET within a period of three years

on first available chance. It was also directed that in case the State

Government does not conduct JTET within the next three years,

9
the candidates who had cleared the examination process shall not

be removed from service.

Subsequent developments after the judgement –

17. Subsequent to the impugned judgment, the JSSC by way of

corrigendum invited online applications from the residents of

Jharkhand who cleared CTET or STET and could not apply as per

Advertisement No. 13 and rescheduled the test to be held on

10.02.2024.

18. The State Government amended the Recruitment Rules on

29.01.2024 and styled them as “Jharkhand Primary School

Sahayak Acharya Sanwarg (Assistant Teacher Cadre)

(Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) (Third

Amendment) Rules, 2024”, (in short “2024 Amended Rules”). By

amending Rule 3, residents of Jharkhand who had qualified CTET

or STET were made eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher

with the stipulation as specified by the High Court in the impugned

order, i.e., to clear the JTET in the first chance available within

three years from the date of appointment.

19. After amendment in the Rules, Advertisement No. 13 was

further amended on 15.02.2024 changing the eligibility criteria as

10
per 2024 Amended Rules, permitting the residents of Jharkhand

such as the private respondents to participate in the ongoing

recruitment process and thereafter changed the date of

examination from time to time.

20. In the instant appeal, this Court vide order in the proceedings

dated 26.04.2024 issued interim directions that the Jharkhand

Primary School Assistant Teacher Joint Competitive Examination,

2023 scheduled to commence from 27.04.2024 may continue, but

its result would not be declared without leave of this Court. As

such, the examination has been conducted awaiting the outcome

of these appeals.

Rival Contentions –

21. We now record the broad contentions advanced by appellants

in assailing the impugned judgment, which are as follows: -

21.1 The appellants contend that it is only the Central

Government which has the power to relax the minimum

required qualifications for appointment as a teacher laid

down by the NCTE by notification dated 11.02.2011 issued

under Section 23 of the RTE Act, and the State Government

could not have usurped the said power and granted

11
 relaxation allowing private respondents to participate in the

ongoing recruitment process, otherwise it would militate the

object and purpose of the RTE Act, 2009.

21.2 The “JTET” is better suited for the needs and requirements

of the schools in Jharkhand State since specific

regional/tribal language notified for each district is tested in

the examination and only the persons proficient in such

languages are posted in those districts.

21.3 More than one lakh teachers holding JTET qualification are

available in the State and there was no need to relax the

minimum qualifications for ongoing selection in furtherance

to the Advertisement No. 13.

21.4 By virtue of the impugned judgment, teaching will be

imparted by teachers who would be under-qualified during

the interregnum, as they may or may not clear the JTET.

21.5 The appellants have a legitimate expectation to be recruited

on the strength of their 2016 JTET qualification and their

chance of being considered for recruitment cannot be

denied.

12
21.6 The 2022 Recruitment Rules and the Advertisement No. 13

mandate clearing the JTET as a minimum eligibility criterion

to participate in the recruitment process, which cannot be

taken away merely on the basis of the impugned judgment

based on the concession of the Advocate General, contrary

to the provisions of the Central Act and the notification.

21.7 After the advertisement, once the recruitment process had

been initiated, it is not be lawful for the State to change the

eligibility criteria, otherwise it would tantamount to

changing the rules of the game mid-way.

21.8 To buttress the said contentions, reliance has been placed

on the judgments of this Court in N.T. Devin Katti Vs.

Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC

157; P.M. Latha Vs. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541;

Devesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 985; Assam PSC Vs. Pranjal Kumar Sarma

and Ors., (2020) 20 SCC 680.

22. The said contentions have been countered by the private

respondents. Their contentions are summarized as follows:

13
22.1 The requirement of knowledge of local language has been

given due weightage in the Recruitment Examination as

specified in the Advertisement No. 13.

22.2 Para 10(b) of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 permits

the State Government to recognize CTET and STET as

qualification, in case the State Government decides not to

conduct TET.

22.3 Appellants have no legitimate expectations since the rules

were amended prior to the examination.

22.4 Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 must be

read along with para 11, which mandates TET to be

conducted annually by the State.

23. The contentions of the appellants have also been opposed by

the State, and the arguments can be summarized as follows:

23.1 The State Government has taken the bona-fide decision to

expand the zone of consideration for recruitment without

altering the criteria for selection, which is in consonance

with the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011.

23.2 After the judgment, the last date of application has been

extended from time to time till 06.04.2024 and the eligibility

14
 of candidates ought to be reckoned on the last date of

submission of application form.

23.3 Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 does not

prohibit the State Government to consider candidates

holding CTET certificates or STET and it can be pressed into

service in a situation as prescribed.

23.4 The respondents have relied upon the judgements of this

Court in ‘State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan (2021)

17 SCC 141; State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan

Chakraborty and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 646; Vikas

Sankhala and Ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

(2017) 1 SCC 350; V. Lavanya and Ors. Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu (2017) 1 SCC 322; Bedanga Talukdar Vs.

Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85; Bank of India Vs.

Aarya K. Babu (2019) 8 SCC 587; Ankita Thakur Vs. HP

Staff Selection Committee 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472;

Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala and

Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 799’.

24. The core dispute revolves around the eligibility criteria for

recruitment of teachers across the State of Jharkhand. Before

adverting to the controversy, the main grievance of the Appellants

15
who are JTET certificate holders and having the eligibility

prescribed in the recruitment rules as per the Advertisement No.

13 on the date of its publication stems from writ petition filed by

Respondent No. 6 (an un-registered association of CTET certificate

holders) and Respondent No. 7 (mother of one of the aspirants

holding CTET certificate) seeking direction to the State to either

conduct the JTET or permit CTET qualified candidates to

participate in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant

Teachers. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the

Advertisement No. 13 was issued to fill up the post of Assistant

Teachers from the candidates, who possessed the qualifications as

prescribed in the recruitment rules and the advertisement. In the

said writ petition, the Court passed an interim order on

25.07.2023 and asked the response of the State, in which serious

reservations were raised by the Government. Despite such

reservations on affidavit, the High Court issued directions

recording the concession of the Advocate General permitting the

CTET or STET holders to participate in the ongoing recruitment

process in furtherance to the Advertisement No. 13. It is not out of

place to mention here that on the date of passing of the final

judgment i.e., 20.12.2023, as per Recruitment Rules, the

16
minimum qualification for Primary and Upper Primary Teacher

was passing the JTET along with other educational qualifications,

however, impugned judgment was passed issuing a direction

permitting the CTET or STET holders contrary to the mandate of

Recruitment Rules. It is pertinent to further mention that in the

writ petition neither the Advertisement No. 13 was under challenge

nor the 2022 Recruitment Rules, even then by the direction of the

High Court, the CTET holders of State as well as the STET holders

from neighbouring States were permitted to participate in the

ongoing recruitment process, which had already commenced,

which is not in accordance with law.

25. The case as set up is that, the State Government by providing

relaxation and allowing CTET and STET holders to participate in

the ongoing recruitment process under the Advertisement No. 13

has usurped the powers of relaxation vested only with the Central

Government under Section 23(2) of RTE Act. In case the State lacks

adequate institutions for imparting training to teachers or there is

dearth of sufficient teachers possessing minimum qualifications,

then the Central Government may by notification, relax the

minimum qualifications of the teachers. The State Government

17
does not possess power to relax the qualifications for appointment

except in a manner prescribed in the NCTE Guidelines.

26. It has also been argued before us that once the Advertisement

No. 13 was notified and recruitment process commenced, no such

change in the eligibility criteria could have been brought by the

State Government in the ongoing recruitment process. It is in this

context the following questions arise for consideration: -

i) Whether on commencement of recruitment process on

19.07.2023, i.e., the date of advertisement, the private

respondents or the appellants possessed the minimum

qualification prescribed in the 2022 Recruitment Rules?

ii) 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 change of rules of the game after commencement

of recruitment process?

iii) Whether in terms of Section 23(2) of 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

parameter?

18
 Discussions and reasonings

In reference to Question (i)

27. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused

the relevant material placed before us. It is not disputed that 2022

Recruitment Rules were framed in exercise of the powers under

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and to fulfil the

standards of the RTE Act for the post of Assistant Teachers.

Chapter 2, Rule 3(d)(1) prescribes qualification for Intermediate

Trained Assistant Teacher with JTET as mentioned in Rule 3(f)(i)(b)

and Rule 3(d)(2) applies for Graduate Trained Teacher wherein

passing of the JTET as mentioned in Rule 3(f)(ii)(b) is essentially

required in addition to other qualifications. We are not referring to

the other qualifications prescribed in the Rules except above since

it is pivotal to the issue involved.

28. On perusal of Rule 3(f)(i)(b) and Rule 3(f)(ii)(b), it is clear that

the Assistant Teachers of Primary or Upper Primary Schools have

to pass the JTET examination conducted by the Government of

Jharkhand. Therefore, as per Rules, on the date of commencement

of the recruitment process in furtherance to Advertisement No. 13

for the recruitment of teachers of Primary Schools and Upper

19
Primary School, passing of the JTET examination is the minimum

eligibility prescribed.

29. In terms of the rules, the Advertisement No. 13 was notified

on 19.07.2023 and in Clauses 5(1) and 5(2), the eligibility criteria

for the post of Intermediate Trained Assistant Teacher and

Graduate Trained Assistant Teacher was specified as under: -

“5(1) – Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) conducted for

classes 1 to 5 by the Government of Jharkhand under the
guidelines formulated by the National Council for Teacher
Education.

5(2) – Passed the Teacher Eligibility Test (JTET) organized by the

Government of Jharkhand for classes 6 to 8 under the guidelines
formulated by the National Council for Teacher Education.”

30. With the said eligibility, the filling up of the form commenced

on 08.08.2023 and the last date as specified was 07.09.2023,

which was subsequently changed to 15.09.2023. As per the

information furnished by respondent no. 6, the said process of

filing up of the forms was disrupted as per order dated 05.09.2023

passed in W.P. (S) No. 4049/2023 in the case of “Bahadur

Mahato and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand” till vacation of

stay on 05.10.2023. The date of filling up of the form was extended

till 22.10.2023, which was further extended to 06.11.2023. The

extension was further allowed as per order passed in W.P. (S) No.

20
4436/2023 until 09.11.2023. We need not refer to various other

orders passed in other writ petitions as they have no relevance to

the issue involved in the present case.

31. It is to state that in furtherance to the orders, the last date of

filling up of the forms was extended from time to time. For clarity

it is to mention that some of the aspirants filed W.P. (S) No.

4425/2023 challenging the 2022 Recruitment Rules and the

Advertisement No. 13 on the pretext that prior to the 2022

Recruitment Rules, the 2012 Rules were in vogue and without

repealing those Rules, notifying the 2022 Recruitment Rules is

ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The challenge was also made

on ground that introduction of provision of the written

examination and interview in the 2022 Recruitment Rules is not

compatible for the persons possessing the minimum eligibility

under the 2012 Rules. The said challenge was negated by the High

Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 dismissing the writ petition.

The Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 23389/2024 preferred

against the said order was also dismissed on 09.09.2024. As such

the minimum eligibility prescribed in the recruitment rules on the

date of commencement of the recruitment process as specified in

the 2022 Recruitment Rules and Advertisement No. 13 have

21
relevance and must be possessed by the candidates who

participated in the recruitment process.

32. Thus, the date of issuance of the advertisement i.e.,

19.07.2023 would be date of the commencement of the

recruitment process and the minimum qualification and eligibility

prescribed for an Assistant Teacher was to pass the JTET

conducted by the Government of Jharkhand along with other

educational qualifications as specified in the Advertisement No.

13. As such, it can be safely concluded that on the date of

commencement of the recruitment process, the qualification as

prescribed was intermediate or graduation (as the case may be)

with JTET for the candidates applying in furtherance to the

advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher.

33. Reverting to the material placed before us on behalf of

respondent no. 6 (an un-registered association of CTET certificate

holders), nothing is brought to our notice to indicate that how

many residents of Jharkhand have passed CTET and whether they

possess JTET certificate or not. Further, respondent no. 7 is the

mother of an aspirant and the certificate of the son or daughter

passing the CTET or JTET examination has not been placed. It has

also not been brought on record that the members of the said un-

22
registered association and the son/daughter of respondent no. 7

possessed the qualification as specified in the 2022 Recruitment

Rules on the date of commencement of the recruitment process. In

absence of any material, upon hearing we can safely conclude that

neither members of respondent no. 6 nor son/daughter of

respondent no. 7 possess the requisite qualification i.e., JTET as

prescribed in the 2022 Recruitment Rules.

34. In view of above discussion, the question No. (i) is answered

holding that on the date of commencement of recruitment process

and on the date of publication of Advertisement No. 13, i.e.,

19.07.2023, the members of the respondent no. 6 and

son/daughter of respondent no. 7 did not possess the requisite

qualification as specified in the 2022 Recruitment Rules.

In reference to Question Nos. (ii) & (iii) –

35. For analysing the questions and to elucidate the issue, it is

necessary to reiterate that the writ petition was filed by an un-

registered association of CTET holders and the mother of one of

the aspirants, seeking direction against the State either to conduct

JTET or permit the CTET qualified candidates to participate in the

recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher. The High

Court by an interim order dated 25.07.2023 quoted in para 14

23
above, referred sub-clause (b) of para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines

and asked the State Government that since it was creating number

of posts for which JTET was a necessary criteria, the State TET

examination is required to be conducted, which has not been held

for last almost nine years (wrongly mentioned, though it was seven

years) from the last examination held in 2016. In the order, the

High Court advised the State to file affidavit stating whether they

intend to allow those candidates, who have obtained the TET

certificate in an examination conduct by Central Government or

any other State provided they fulfil other eligibility.

36. In compliance, the State Government filed a supplementary

counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that JTET tests the knowledge

of local languages of the candidates, which is essential for the

purpose of recruitment as language teachers, and that there are

adequate number of JTET qualified candidates available within the

state and allowing CTET qualified teachers in the vacancies of the

state run schools will cause prejudice to the JTET qualified

candidates. Most importantly, in the context of para 10 of the

NCTE Guidelines, the stand taken by the State in the counter

affidavit before High Court is referred as under: -

24
 “18. It is further stated that a Central TET qualified
candidate or a candidate qualifying TET by another State/UT
can only be considered for a State run schools when the
particular State Government has decided not to conduct its own
TET.

19. That it is most humbly stated that it is not the case

that the State Government had decided not to conduct the JTET
and in these circumstances the State Government is not bound
to consider Central TET or a candidate qualifying TET by another
State/UT as eligible qualification.

20. That CTET qualified candidates can be made eligible

in a given contingency where the State Government is not
conducting TET, but when this contingency does not exist, there
is no occasion to make Central TET candidates eligible or to allow
those candidates who have obtained TET certificates from
Central Government or another other State/UT.

21. That it is most humbly stated that there has been

certain contingencies due to which regular JTET Examination
could not be conducted regularly and hence the state is intending
to allow age relaxation to the candidates for upcoming vacancies,
moreover, it is also intended to conduct JTET examination before
the start of fresh recruitment of teachers within the State.

22. That it is stated that the issue whether to consider

the CTET or the TET from other State/ UT is a matter of policy
decision of the State Government.”

37. On perusal of the stand noted above, it is apparent that a

candidate who has qualified TET, conducted by another State or

conducted by the Centre, can be considered for State run schools

only when the State has decided not to conduct its own TET. As

25
the Government has not taken decision for not conducting the TET

therefore, the CTET or the STET qualified candidates are not

required to be made eligible. Even then, the High Court in the

impugned judgment recorded the concession of the Advocate

General based on oral instructions contrary to the stand taken in

counter affidavit and in para 6 observed as thus: -

“6. However, in course of hearing of these writ petitions

today, learned Advocate General appearing for the State would
submit that he has received oral instructions that the State is
willing to relax the criteria for eligibility as far as the candidates
having CTET examination certificate with a stipulation that in a
future date they have to clear the State TET examination and
those persons should be the residents of Jharkhand. Since the
law provides that every year, there should be a TET Examination
and for the last so many years, there has been no examination
for testing the eligibility of aspirants to be appointed as teachers,
we are of the opinion that not only those candidates, who have
CTET certificate and residents of Jharkhand, but also those
residents of Jharkhand, having other qualification and having
State TET examination certificate of any of the neighbouring
States should also be given a chance to appear in the
examination with certain stipulations which we propose to lay
down in the following paragraphs.”

38. In view of the said observations, concluding paras 7, 8 and 9

of the impugned judgment of the High Court are also relevant and

are quoted for ready reference as under: -

26
 “7. In view of the proposal made by the learned Advocate
General and also having considered the matter to a great
anxiety, we hereby, dispose of the writ petitions and the W.P.
(PIL) directing the State Government to conduct the TET
examination every year, henceforth.

8. We further direct that those residents of the State of

Jharkhand, who are otherwise eligible to appear in the
examination and hold a CTET certificate or a certificate issued
by the neighbouring States having resident of Jharkhand shall
be allowed to appear in the ongoing process with a further
stipulation that the State shall ensure that the examination, if not
held within a year, is held at least within next three years and
the candidates who have participated in the selection process
and have been appointed have to clear that STET examination
within a period of three years by giving one chance. They shall
pass it within three years and in one first available chance.

9. We further stipulate that the State Government shall

not conduct the examination at least for next three months so that
the candidates should get some time to get ready or prepare for
the exam. If the State Government fails to conduct the
examination within three years, then the stipulation will not take
its full effect and those candidates who have cleared the
examination process and having otherwise qualified shall not be
removed from service.”

39. On filing these appeals and after issuance of notice, the State

respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have filed the counter affidavit and stated

that the concession given by the Advocate General on behalf of the

State providing relaxation is in consonance with para 10(b) of the

27
NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, for which the Government is

having competence.

40. We have examined the guidelines, on plain contextual

reading of para 10(b), it is unambiguously clear that TET

conducted by the State Government/UT with legislature shall

apply to schools of State Government/UT and local authority as

defined in clause (i), (ii) of sub-section (n) of Section 2 of RTE Act.

The discretion is conferred to the State schools to consider the

candidates who have obtained TET certificate awarded by another

State/UT with legislature for the purpose of eligibility. For the

candidates possessing TET conducted by the Central Government,

it is specified that they may be considered in case the State

Government has decided ‘not to conduct the TET.’ Therefore, in

respect of the TET certificate awarded by another State/UT, it was

a discretion of the State to accept for the purpose of eligibility but

for the TET of the Central Government such discretion was with a

rigour wherein the State Government has to decide that it does not

want to conduct the TET in the State. In our view, such discretion

may be exercised by the Government taking conscious decision

prior to commencement of the recruitment process, but not after

28
issuance of the advertisement or on the basis of direction of the

Court.

41. At the cost of repetition, at this juncture the stand taken in

the counter affidavit filed by the State Government before the High

Court was that, JTET could not be conducted due to COVID-19

and framing the new rules in pipeline to bring the JTET at par with

the quality and standard of CTET. It was also contended that CTET

is conducted to determine the eligibility of teachers to be recruited

in Central Government Schools, thus, it does not fulfil the needs

and requirements of the schools in the State of Jharkhand. In

furtherance to the interim order dated 25.07.2023, the stand taken

in the supplementary counter affidavit was that there are sufficient

JTET qualified candidates available in the State, and allowing

CTET qualified teachers to apply for the vacancies advertised will

cause prejudice to the rights of the JTET qualified candidates.

Further, the CTET or STET qualified candidates can be considered

only if the State Government ‘decides not to conduct TET’,

however, ‘no such decision’ has been taken. The said stand has

been quoted in para 36 above.

42. The stand taken by the State in counter affidavit before this

Court was that the relaxation provided by the State Government is

29
an equitable solution, which is conditional with the stipulation

that the candidates must clear JTET in first available chance

within 3 years and in consonance with para 10(b) of the NCTE

Guidelines dated 11.02.2011. However, in the written submission,

the stand taken is that para 10(b) of the Guidelines dated

11.02.2011 does not require the State Government to take a

‘specific decision’ to not conduct TET examination at all. It attracts

when the TET has not been conducted by the State Government

and alternative methods as set out in Guideline 10(b) can be

availed. Para 11 of the Guidelines dated 11.02.2011 require the

State to conduct TET annually, and in situations where the State

decides not to conduct TET, it can consider the eligibility as per

para 10(b) of the Guidelines dated 11.02.2011.

43. In above reference, it is luculent that the State Government

has changed its stand at every stage of the litigation, which is not

conscionable and acceptable and in other words, it would amount

to arbitrary and unfair exercise of power by the State. After the

specific stand taken by the State in the counter-affidavit before the

High Court, the concession given by the Advocate General during

hearing would not amount to the communication of conscious

decision of the State. In fact, it ought to have been taken prior to

30
the issuance of advertisement and cannot disturb the ongoing

recruitment process. In the said factual situation, giving

concession by the Advocate General on the basis of oral

instructions to allow the CTET candidates or STET of neighbouring

States in the ongoing process, cannot be said to be in consonance

with law.

44. In the impugned judgment, para 7 refers the concession of

the Advocate General and directions to the State Government to

conduct TET every year. Para 8 of the judgment contemplates that

in view of the concession of the Advocate General, the State is

willing to relax the criteria for eligibility as far as the residents of

Jharkhand having CTET or STET of the neighbouring States and

they be allowed to appear in the ongoing selection process. In our

view, it amounts to arbitrary alteration of eligibility in the ongoing

recruitment process mid-way.

45. An endeavour has been made by the State to justify its act on

the strength of para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines. In this regard, to

further understand the true rigour thereof, it is pertinent to

discuss the provisions relating to minimum eligibility criteria for

teachers under the RTE Act and subsequent notifications.

31
46. Section 23 of the RTE Act specifies qualifications for

appointment and terms & conditions of the service of teachers. The

said provision is relevant therefore, reproduced as under: -

“23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and

conditions of service of teachers. —

(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as

laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central
Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as
a teacher.

(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering

courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possessing
minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are
not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may,
if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum
qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such
period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that
notification:

Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act,

does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under
sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within
a period of five years:

Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position as on

the 31st March, 2015, who does not possess minimum
qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire
such minimum qualifications within a period of four years from
the date of commencement of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017 (24 of 2017).

32
 (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and
conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be
prescribed.”

47. From the above, it is clear that Section 23(1) prescribes

minimum qualification notified by the academic authority to be

possessed by a teacher. Vide notification dated 31.03.2010, NCTE

has been declared as the academic authority to lay down the

minimum qualification. As per notification dated 23.08.2010,

NCTE prescribed the minimum qualification, whereby in addition

to the intermediate or graduate in the respective subject, passing

of TET conducted by the appropriate government in accordance

with the guidelines for the purpose is essential. NCTE has framed

the guidelines for conducting the TET and published it on

11.02.2011 wherein para 5 deals eligibility to acquire the academic

and professional qualifications as specified in the NCTE

notification. Para 5(iii) makes it clear that eligibility for appearing

in TET may be relaxed in respect of the State/UT under sub-

section (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act by way of notification of the

Central Government. Para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines deals with

applicability, in particular of TET. The said guideline has already

been referred to in para 7 above, as per which, the TET conducted

by the Central Government shall apply in relation to a school

33
established, owned or controlled by the Central Government or the

Administrator of UT having no legislature. Similarly, TET

conducted by State Government/UT with legislature applies to a

school of the State Government/UT with legislature or local

authority referred to in clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (n) of Section

2 of the RTE Act. As discussed earlier above, para 10 further

specifies that a school to which the TET conducted by the State

Government/UT with legislature applies, may also consider

eligibility of a candidate who has obtained TET certificate awarded

by another State/UT with legislature. In case a State /UT with

legislature decides not to conduct a TET, a school under para

10(b)(i) and (ii) would consider the TET conducted by the Central

Government.

48. Thus, from the said guidelines, it is quite vivid that for a

school covered by para 10(b)(i) & (ii), discretion has been conferred

to accept the TET certificate awarded by another State/UT. But for

the same school, if the State decides not to conduct TET, then

discretion has been given to consider the TET conducted by the

Central Government for eligibility. In our view, the High Court has

not considered the said provision in right perspective for which it

is introduced.

34
49. Now reverting to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act, by which the

power to relax the minimum qualification can be exercised by the

Central Government in case the State does not have adequate

institutions offering courses or training in teacher education or

teachers possessing minimum qualifications as laid-down in sub-

section (1) of Section 23 are not available in sufficient numbers. In

the said contingency, the relaxation in the eligibility condition may

be granted not more than 5 years. From the material placed before

us, it is clear that the State Government has not applied asking

relaxation and it has failed to make out a case within the four

corners of Section 23(2) of RTE Act.

50. From the above discussion, passing of TET conducted by the

State for the schools as defined in Section 2(n) of the RTE Act is

essential on the date of commencement of the recruitment process,

which is posited in the 2022 Recruitment Rules as well as the

Advertisement No. 13.

51. The appellants have argued that in light of Section 23(2) of

the RTE Act, only the Central Government has the power to relax

the eligibility criteria. Per contra, the respondents have argued that

in view of para 10 of the NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011, the

State Government has the power to relax and to consider CTET or

35
STET. In the facts as discussed, issuance of the notification by the

Central Government granting exemption in terms of Clause 23(2)

of the RTE Act has neither been raised by the parties before the

High Court nor answered, therefore, we are also not deciding this

issue in true sense. As discussed above, the State Government had

not taken any decision to not to conduct the TET prior to the date

of commencement of the recruitment process to fulfil the pre-

requisite of para 10(b) and the notification of Central Government

relaxing the minimum qualification as prescribed under Section

23(2) of the RTE Act is also not on record. As per the material

placed above, it is suffice to conclude that the concession of the

Advocate General referring para 10, styled as “Applicability” of the

NCTE Guidelines having effect of change of eligibility criteria in the

ongoing recruitment process cannot be accepted. In said

circumstances, we are restricting our opinion on the question of

relaxing the qualification mid-way in on-going recruitment process

and its applicability.

52. In the sequel of the facts and discussions made hereinabove

and to elucidate the issue legally in detail, we can profitably refer

the recent judgement of the Constitution Bench of this Court in

‘Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.,

36
2024 INSC 847, whereby this Court had the occasion to deal with

the question as to whether the State can tinker with the rules of

the game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria mid-way.

While answering the said question in clear terms, it was held that

eligibility criteria/essential qualifications of candidates seeking

recruitment cannot be altered after the recruitment process has

begun. The relevant part of the judgment dealing with the issue, is

reproduced hereunder –

“6. Cut-off date with reference to which eligibility has to

be determined is the date appointed by the relevant service rules;
where no such cut-off date is provided in the rules, then it will be
the date appointed in the advertisement inviting applications;
and if there is no such date appointed, then eligibility criteria
shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which
the applications were to be received.

7. The law is settled that after commencement of the

recruitment process the eligibility criteria is not to be altered
because candidates even if eligible under the altered criteria
might not apply by the last date under the belief that they are
not eligible as per the advertised criteria. Such
alteration/change, therefore, deprives a person of the guarantee
of equal opportunity in matters of public employment provided by
Article 16 of the Constitution. The reference order therefore
acknowledges this legal position and in clear terms accepts that
‘the rules of the game’ cannot be changed after commencement
of the recruitment process insofar as the eligibility criteria is
concerned.”

37
53. The Constitution Bench has also clarified that the

recruitment process commences from the date of issuance of the

advertisement and concludes with the filling up of notified

vacancies.

“13. The process of recruitment begins with the issuance

of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified
vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications,
scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or
elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations,
calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of
successful candidates for appointment.”

54. After much deliberation, the Constitution Bench concluded

the reference as thus –

“42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following

terms –

(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;

38
 (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law
and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with
the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K.
Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select
List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different
issues;

(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise

appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its
logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent,
non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved.

(5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the

recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent,
administrative instructions may fill in the gaps;

(6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to

appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide
reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if
vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily
deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in
the select list.”

55. The position of law as per Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is

therefore clear, that the recruitment process commences from the

issuance of the advertisement, and that eligibility criteria as laid

down therein cannot be changed mid-way during the recruitment

process unless the extant rules or the advertisement permit such

a change after the issuance. Even if such a power to amend is

39
reserved in the advertisement or the rules, it must be tested on the

anvil of Article 14 and pass the test of non–arbitrariness.

56. Learned counsel for the respondents referring Clause 5(i) of

the Advertisement No. 13 made an attempt to contend that the last

date of submission of application form which is amended time to

time may be taken as the date of eligibility. For ready reference,

Clause 5(i) of the Advertisement No. 13 is reproduced as under: -

“(i) It will be mandatory for the candidates to have

passed the desired minimum educational qualification by the
last date of receipt of applications in the Commission. That is,
the last date of submission of online application will be
considered as the reference date for determining educational
qualification. If any candidate does not possess the prescribed
educational qualification by this date, he/she will be considered
ineligible to fill the application.”

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 vogue, even then, the High Court issued the

direction accepting the CTET and STET as eligibility contrary to

the existing rules. After the impugned judgment, the examination

40
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

41
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 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.

59. Our attention has been drawn to the judgements of this Court

in ‘Vikas Sankhala and Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

(2017) 1 SCC 350’ and ‘V. Lavanya and Ors. v. State of Tamil

Nadu (2017) 1 SCC 322’, but those judgements relate to

interpretation of power of relaxation in TET under para 9 of the

NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011. Those judgments have no

bearing or applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The other judgements cited by the learned counsel for the parties

are not directly applicable on the facts of the present case, hence

are not being dealt with to burden the judgement.

42
60. The private respondents have relied upon the judgement in

‘State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakroborty and Ors.,

(2017) 3 SCC 646’ and ‘V. Lavanya and Ors. v. State of Tamil

Nadu, (2017) 1 SCC 322’ to argue that mere expansion of zone of

consideration without changing the eligibility criteria and without

excluding candidates, is permissible under the law. Reference has

also been made to the judgements in ‘Bank of India v. Aarya K.

Babu, (2019) 8 SCC 587’ and ‘Ankita Thakur v. HP Staff

Selection Committee, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1472’ to argue that

change of eligibility criteria after the issuance of the notification

can be done provided that wide publicity is made of such a change

and opportunity is given to similarly situated candidates to

participate and compete with the others. In the facts of this case

and in view of the Constitution Bench judgement in Tej Prakash

Pathak (supra). It is not necessary to again reiterate the issue.

61. From the above discussions, in our view, it is clear that the

directions issued by the High Court is amounting to change in

eligibility criteria in the ongoing recruitment process. In addition,

in the facts, the concession given by the Advocate General was

contrary to the stand of the State Government which is

unconscionable, unjustified and unfair. We are not inclined to

43
accept the contentions of the respondents and the same are

repelled. The question Nos. (ii) and (iii) are answered accordingly.

62. During pendency of these appeals, I.A. No. 197527/2024 has

been filed by the appellants seeking declaration that the 2024

Amended Rules are ultra-vires to the RTE Act. As per the

discussions made hereinabove, we are not expressing any view in

regard to the ultra-vires of the amended rules since they are not

under challenge before the High Court or before this Court.

However, our judgment would apply only with respect to the

question posited to answer. We make it clear that if vires of the

2024 Amended Rules is assailed before appropriate forum by the

parties, it may be looked into on its own merit uninfluenced by the

observations made in this judgment.

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 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;

44
(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.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

….…………….…………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 30, 2025.

45
 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO………………….OF 2025

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4194 OF 2024)

PARIMAL KUMAR & ORS. … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. … Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO………………….OF 2025

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4195 OF 2024)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. I have gone through the well-reasoned opinion

expressed by brother J.K. Maheshwari, J. I fully endorse the

views expressed and the answers to three questions as framed

in paragraph ‘26’ of the judgment.

1
2. As the case pertains to selection of Assistant

Teachers, I wish to add a few lines regarding importance of their

role in nation building. They are to teach in Primary and Upper

Primary Schools i.e. upto Class VIII. The role played by a

teacher, especially when dealing with students in primary

schools, is of utmost importance. Teachers educate the young

minds, much like sculptors shaping clay, to mould them into

better human beings. The imprint a teacher leaves on the

minds of their students is everlasting.

3. The status of a teacher is well said in the Sanskrit

verse taken from Guru Gita which is said to be part of

Visvasaratantra from Uttarakhand of Skandapurana. The same

is reproduced hereunder:

“Gurur Brahma Gurur Vishnu, Gurur Devo

Maheshwara;

Guru Sakshat Param Brahma, Tasmai Shri Gurave

Namah”

This Shloka refers to the Guru as none other than

Brahma– The creator, Vishnu– The sustainer and Shiva–

The destroyer, since the Guru creates, sustains

knowledge and destroys ignorance. By doing so he

2
 liberates the disciple from the ocean of samsara, from

the trap of Maya, thereby attaining Moksha. For this,

we bow down with utter humility and total gratitude to

the Guru.

(Source: Guru Gita which is said to be part of

Visvasaratantra from Uttarakhand of
Skandapurana)
4. On number of occasions the importance of role of

teachers was highlighted by this Court. In Andhra Kesari

Educational Society v. Director of School Education,

(1989) 1 SCC 392 this Court opined that a teacher should

have the quality to inspire and motivate his students. Relevant

para thereof is extracted as under:

“20. ……. Though teaching is the last choice in

the job market, the role of teachers is central to all
processes of formal education. The teacher alone
could bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities
of students. He is the “engine” of the educational
system. He is a principal instrument in awakening
the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed
and energised with needed potential to deliver
enlightened service expected of him. His quality
should be such as would inspire and motivate into
action the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast
of everchanging conditions. He is not to perform in a
wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate
fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse
nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His

3
 involvement in national integration is more
important, indeed indispensable.”
5. The observations made by this Court in State of

Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC

435, pertaining to the role of a teacher are extracted

hereunder:

“12. ….… The teacher plays pivotal role in

moulding the career, character and moral fibres and
aptitude for educational excellence in impressive
young children. Formal education needs proper
equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of
the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to
the students on secular, scientific and rational
outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the
needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the
students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as
Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a
principal instrument to awakening the child to the
cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline.
The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-
changing techniques, the needs of the society and
to cope up with the psychological approach to the
aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role.
In short teachers need to be endowed and energised
with needed potential to serve the needs of the
society. The qualitative training in the training
colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them
into action to the benefit of the students. For
equipping such trainee students in a school or a
college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely
necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no
place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that
behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is

4
 insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial
fiat to control the mode of education and examining
system are detrimental to the efficient management
of the education.”
6. In Sushmita Basu & Ors. vs. Ballygunge Siksha

Samity (2006) 7 SCC 680, this Court again had occasion to

deal with the pivotal role played by the teachers in moulding

the lives of students at their primitive age and sacrifice they

are required to make. Relevant para thereof is extracted

hereunder:

“5. We must remember that the profession of

teaching is a noble profession. It is not an
employment in the sense of it being merely an
earner of bread and butter. A teacher fulfils a great
role in the life of the nation. He is the “guru”. It is
the teacher, who moulds its future citizens by
imparting to his students not only knowledge, but
also a sense of duty, righteousness and dedication
to the welfare of the nation, in addition to other
qualities of head and heart.……. A teacher's
profession calls for a little sacrifice in the interests of
the nation. The main asset of a teacher is his
students, former and present. Teachers who have
lived up to ideals are held in great esteem by their
disciples. The position of the guru, the teacher, in
our ethos is equal to that of God (Matha Pitha Guru
Daivam). The teachers of today must ensure that

5
 this great Indian concept and the reverential
position they hold, is not sacrificed at the altar of
avarice.”

7. The importance of a teacher as narrated by Pandit

Mohan Malaviya (the founder of the Banaras Hindu University)

was highlighted in the following lines:

“… It lies largely in his teacher’s hand to mould the

mind of the child who I father of the man. If he is
patriotic and devoted to the national cause and
realizes his responsibility, he can produce a race of
patriotic men and women who would religiously
place the country above the community and
national gain above communal advantage.”

8. We have passed through COVID-19 pandemic.

Computer and electronic gadgets such as mobile phones,

tablets/I-pads, desktops which were prohibited to be used by

the students of elementary classes, to some extent became the

necessity overnight as that was the only medium which kept

various systems including education, continue.

9. Social media has also overpowered our lives and so

the cyber-bullying, which is affecting students more. Proper

guidance is essential to educate them at an early stage,

enabling them to discern right from wrong. In this context, the

6
role of a teacher is crucial. Lot of information is available on

various web portals, how to differentiate between the right or

wrong is the moot question. It is the duty of the teacher to

guide the students as to how to make a distinction.

10. The positive and negative applications of artificial

intelligence are being experienced by everyone today. Not only

the illiterate or semi-literate individuals but also well-educated

people fall victim to various cyber-crimes. In this context, the

role of teachers becomes crucial, as they can guide students on

the dos and don’ts of use of technology.

11. It is a matter of fact that whenever a student learns

something, the family also learns as a consequence, especially

in cases where the parents may be illiterate or semi-literate.

12. With the change in scenario, it is the utmost duty of a

teacher to apprise the young minds and also guide them

regarding safe use of technology. This is one of the important

areas where teachers also need to appreciate their

responsibility besides formal education, to prepare them to be

responsible citizens of the country.

7
13. In the case in hand from the selection stage only, the

candidates for the post of Assistant Teachers have been made

to indulge in litigation, which should be avoided and for that

matter for all kinds of services. This will enable the employees

to concentrate more on their job than the litigation.

……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
January 30, 2025.