Nagendra Nath Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:21765-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 853 of 2025

¶3

-----

¶4

Nagendra Nath Mahto, aged about 35 years, Son of Tribhuwan Mahto, Resident of Village Khudimadukam, P.O. Reladih, P.S. - Bundu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand -835204.

¶5

Budhray Majhi, aged about 36 years, Son of Jagannath Majhi, Resident of Village Mahatabera, P.O. & P.S.Kandra, District - Seraikella, Jharkhand – 832402.

¶6

Dwarika Yadav, aged about 37 years, Son of Jiblal Gope, Resident of Upar Tola, Lodhma, Chhattar Mandu, P.O. - Chhattar Mandu, P.S. - Ramgarh Cantt. District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand – 825101.

¶7

Santosh Kumar, aged about 38 years, Son of Badri Rawani, Resident of Village - Sonabank, P.O. - Ranidih, P.S. - Karon, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand, 815357.

¶8

… … Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. For the J.S.S.C. : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate

¶17

¶18

Order No. 02 / Dated 1^st August, 2025

¶19

1. The instant petition has been filed complaining of violation of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5928 of 2023 wherein this Court had applied the notification dated 29^th January, 2024 to the pending

¶20

1

¶21

2025:JHHC:21765-DB

¶22

recruitment whereby and whereunder the petitioners would claim 5% relaxation in the minimum cut off marks for S.C./S.T. etc.

¶23

2. We have perused the entire records more particularly the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Certain candidates, aggrieved by the selection which was now been made subject to the notification dated 29^th of January, 2024, filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court being S.L.P.(C) No.4194 to 2024 titled Parimal Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. where the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the judgment passed by this Court and observed as under :-

¶24

“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

¶25

2

¶26

2025:JHHC:21765-DB

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with the following directions: -

¶30

(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;

¶31

(ii) The JTET holders who were possessing the requisite qualification under the 2022 Recruitment Rules, prior to the 2024 Amendment and participated shall be

¶32

3

¶33

2025:JHHC:21765-DB

¶34

eligible for appointment and their result be declared forthwith and the appointments be made strictly on merit;

¶35

(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.

¶36

(iv) Ordered accordingly.

¶37

4. Bare perusal of the aforesaid observation made by

¶38

the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly go to indicate that in sum and substance the judgment relied upon by the petitioners herein has been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though in a separate proceeding.

¶39

5. Consequently, no case for contempt is made out.

¶40

6. The contempt petition is dismissed.

¶41

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶42

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶43

Birendra/Samarth

¶44

4

Nagendra Nath Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Nath Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Baraik Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Principal Secretary

Damodar Valley Corporation Represented through Its Authorised Signatory Namely, Mr. Abhik Raj Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi Represented through Its Secretary

M/S Sidh Hanuman Enterprises through Its Proprietor Namely Pulkit Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro Its Secretary Department of State Tax

Ram Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunwar Yuvraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kailash Kumar Mahto Vs the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change