Jharkhand High Court

Anuj Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                         2025:JHHC:21792-DB




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Contempt Case (Civil) No. 923 of 2025
1. Anuj Sharma, aged about 36 years, Son of Shrawan Sharma,
Resident of Village Sakaldipa, P.O. & P.S. -Patan, District Palamau,
Jharkhand - 822123.
2. Suresh Yadav, aged about 36 years, Son of Guli Mahto, Resident of
Village Kubri, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. -Birni, District - Giridih,
Jharkhand-825324.
3. Pramod Kumar Yadav, aged about 36 years, Son of Nagina Yadav,
Resident of Village Gosaindih, P.O. Udaigarh, P.S. Chhattarpur, District
Palamu, Jharkhand - 822113.
4. Somnath Kumar Shil, aged about 41 years, Son of Ashok Kumar
Shil, Resident of Village Barhait Bazar, P.O. & P.S. - Barhait, District -
Sahibganj, Jharkhand-816102.
5. Md. Shahid Akhtar, aged about 37 years, Son of Sheikh Majid,
Resident of Village Hurhad, P.O. Jingi, P.S.-Kuru, District - Lohardaga,
Jharkhand - 835213.
6. Prahlad Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Shankar Kumhar,
Resident of Village - Barora, P.O. Nawagarh, P.S. Barora, District -
Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828306.
7. Yogendra Tirkey, aged about 40 years, Son of Mahesh Tirkey,
Resident of Village Genmer, P.O. Genmer, P.S. Bano, District -
Simdega, Jharkhand - 835201.
8. Jyotimoy Ghosh, aged about 36 years, Son of Nanda Kishore Ghosh,
Resident of Village Dalachak, P.O. Amba, P.S. Bagdehari, District -
Jamtara, Jharkhand - 815359.
9. Nand Lal Sah, aged about 41 years, Son of Late Ramkailash Sah,
Resident of Village Haripur, P.O. Haripur Bazar, P.S. Jarmundi, District
- Dumka, Jharkhand-814118.
10. Reeta Kumari, aged about 41 years, Wife of Anand Kumar,
Resident of Village Rangritand, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, District -
Dhanbad, Jharkhand-828402.                           ...   Petitioners
                            Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Uma Shankar Singh, Principal Secretary, School Education and
Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kalinagar, Namkum,
P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Opp. Parties
                            ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                            ---------
For the Petitioners         : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate.
For the State               : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI
                               Mr. Piyush Anand, A.C. to S.C.-VI.
For the J.P.S.C.             : M/s Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh
                               Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Advocate.
                     ---------


                        -1 of 4-
                                               2025:JHHC:21792-DB




06/Dated: 04.08.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed complaining of violation of the

judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.6475 of 2023 wherein

this Court had applied the notification dated 29th January, 2024 to the

pending recruitment whereby and whereunder the petitioners would

claim 5% relaxation in the minimum cut off marks for S.C./S.T. etc.

2. We have perused the entire records more particularly the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case where certain

candidates, aggrieved by the selection which was made subject to the

notification dated 29th of January, 2024, filed Special Leave Petition

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. (C) No.4194 of 2024

titled Parimal Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. and

the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the judgment passed by this

Court in W.P. (S) No.6475 of 2023 (Supra) and observed 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 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 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

-2 of 4- 2025:JHHC:21792-DB

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 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 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