JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: i. For a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents, including the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Sahayak Acharya (Class 6 to 8) as they have participated in the recruitment process and appeared at the written examination which was conducted by the respondents JSSC on the basis of Advertisement No. 13/2023, read with Amendment Notification dated 29.01.2024 and Corrigendum Notice dated 15.02.2024 considering the fact that the petitioners are very much fulfilling the amended eligibility criteria of Jharkhand Primary School Sahayak Acharya (Assistant Teacher Cadre) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2024 and they are fully qualified JTET and are not in any manner falling in debarred category of CTET and STET candidates who stand non eligible on the basis of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4194/2024 and the petitioners also pray for appropriate directions upon the respondents to declare their results and proceed with their appointment as per merit. ii. In the interim the respondents JSSC may be directed to stay the appointment process till the disposal of the instant writ petition or reserve 70 seats for the writ petitioners subject to outcome of the writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the as per the pleadings are that the State of Jharkhand, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, notified the Jharkhand Primary School Sahayak Acharya (Assistant Teacher Cadre) Rules, 2022 to regulate appointments of Assistant Teachers for classes 1 to 5 and 6 to 8 in Government schools. The said Rules were amended twice thereafter. The Petitioners are holders of a two-year B.Ed. degree and possess valid JTET certificates issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council. Since the State of Jharkhand has not conducted JTET after 2016, candidates, who completed teacher training thereafter, approached this Court through various writ petitions, seeking a direction to either conduct a fresh JTET or permit CT??-qualified candidates to apply under Advertisement No. 13/2023 for the post of Sahayak Acharya. Since the State of Jharkhand has not conducted JTET after 2016, candidates, who completed teacher training thereafter, approached this Court through various writ petitions, seeking a direction to either conduct a fresh JTET or permit CT??-qualified candidates to apply under Advertisement No. 13/2023 for the post of Sahayak Acharya. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Respondent Jharkhand State Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred as JSSC) published Advertisement No.13/2023 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for “Jharkhand Primary Teachers Combined Competitive Examination, 2023” for26001 vacancies in the State Government schools. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the Petitioners, while applying for the post of Sahayak Acharya (Class 6 to 8), noticed a discrepancy regarding recognition of the two-year B.Ed. course. Though, the advertisement omitted mention of such qualification, the online portal included “two-year B.Ed.” in its drop-down menu of qualifications, creating an expectation and prompting some petitioners to proceed by selecting the available option best matching their credentials. 4. Prior recruitment, notifications issued by the JSSC had expressly recognized the two-year B.Ed. programme as an eligible qualification, thereby reinforcing the expectation of candidates that the portal’s display was a typographical error. However, after a few days, the JSSC abruptly removed the “two-year B.Ed.” option from the educational qualification drop-down menu of the portal, creating confusion among candidates who had already applied. In the light of this ambiguity, several aggrieved candidates submitted representations to the JSSC, seeking clarification on the validity of their applications. In response, the JSSC communicated via email assuring the affected applicants that their candidature would not be affected due to the earlier portal entry, provided they re-submit their forms using one of the officially notified qualification options with a written representation. Believing the instruction as given by JSSC, the Petitioners filled the form with the options available. 5. Further fact reveals that the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure-4) in W.P. (PIL) No. 2785/2023, W.P. (C). No. 5559/2022, W.P. (C). No. 5697/2022 and W.P. (C). No. 1936/2023, recorded the Advocate General's submission and directed that eligible Jharkhand residents holding CTET or neighbouring State certificates be permitted to participate in the ongoing recruitment process. After the order of this High Court dated 20.12.2023, the Respondent-State made an amendment in the Jharkhand Primary School Sahayak Acharya (Assistant Teacher Cadre) Rules vide notification dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-5 & 5/1) by which candidates having any B.Ed. degree were made eligible. After the order of this High Court dated 20.12.2023, the Respondent-State made an amendment in the Jharkhand Primary School Sahayak Acharya (Assistant Teacher Cadre) Rules vide notification dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-5 & 5/1) by which candidates having any B.Ed. degree were made eligible. Certain aggrieved candidates challenged the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 2785/2023, W.P. (C) No.5559/2022, W.P. (C) No. 5697/2022, and W.P. (C) No. 1936/2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. (Civil) No.4194/2024 and S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4195/2025. 6. While the above referred appeals were pending, the Respondent JSSC proceeded to conduct the recruitment examination pursuant to Advertisement No. 13/2023, in which the present petitioners duly participated. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure-6); allowed the said SLPs and set aside the High Court’s order permitting CTET/STET candidates from neighboring States to participate in the recruitment process. The Apex Court further directed that JTET holders possessing requisite qualifications under the 2022 Rules and who participated in the process shall be declared eligible and their results be published, and appointments be made on merit. CTET/STET candidates applying post-amendment were held ineligible under Advertisement No. 13/2023. 7. Upon perusal of paragraph 62 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the Court did not enter into the merits of the recruitment rules thereby clearly implying that the Amendment Rules, 2024 remain untouched and unaffected and the scope of the judgment was confined solely to the issue of inclusion of CTET-qualified candidates. Accordingly, the Petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed under the 2024 amended Rules. 8. The case of the Petitioners is that they have qualified the written examination and have been called for document verification and the Petitioners have made the requisite submission of documents as per notification dated 29.01.2024; however, some of the Petitioners are in receipt of the notice that degree in Education is unavailable as per the advertisement. The grievance of these Petitioners is that judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 30.02.2025 is confined to the ineligibility of CTET and neighbouring State TET holders and does not deal with other eligibility conditions. Hence, it should not be misapplied/misinterpreted to prejudice the Petitioners, who possess JTET certificates and are otherwise eligible. The petitioners’ candidature cannot be rejected for lack of B.Ed. Hence, it should not be misapplied/misinterpreted to prejudice the Petitioners, who possess JTET certificates and are otherwise eligible. The petitioners’ candidature cannot be rejected for lack of B.Ed. (Special Education) under the 2022 Rules, especially when the JSSC has already implemented the Supreme Court judgment by disqualifying CTET/STET candidates vide notice dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure-8). 9. The contention of the Petitioner is that issuing fresh notices to seek compliance with the repealed 2022 Rules, despite the 2024 amendments which remain unchallenged is arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the Petitioners fulfill the eligibility under the amended 2024 Rules and the Petitioners cannot be excluded from consideration in view of the fact that they have appeared in the written examination and were eligible at the time of the examination. The judgment dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 4194/2024 and 4195/2025 does not invalidate or interfere with the 2024 Amendment, and therefore, the Petitioners, who hold a two-year B.Ed. degree and valid JTET certificates, fully satisfy the eligibility criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers pursuant to the Advertisement in view of the notification dated 29.01.2024. Consequently, the decision of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to reject their candidature on the basis of the pre-amendment 2022 eligibility criteria is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The specific case of these Petitioners is that the removal of the “two-year B.Ed.” option from the application portal by the JSSC, after initially permitting selection and then rejecting applicants on that basis, constitutes a violation of the principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and natural justice. The petitioners’ right to be considered under the prevailing eligibility norms cannot be defeated by the Respondents. The Respondent authorities are estopped from denying these Petitioners the benefit of eligibility, having granted permission for participation and assurance of candidature. Accordingly, intervention of this Court is sought for the protection of the Petitioners’ rights under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners has made the following submissions: (i) Before 1993, teacher education in India operated under a highly decentralized system, governed separately by State Governments and Universities without a unified national framework. This resulted in significant disparities in quality, with a one-year B.Ed. 11. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners has made the following submissions: (i) Before 1993, teacher education in India operated under a highly decentralized system, governed separately by State Governments and Universities without a unified national framework. This resulted in significant disparities in quality, with a one-year B.Ed. program heavily focused on rote learning and theoretical instruction, while practicum and classroom training remained peripheral. The lack of a standard curriculum and regulatory oversight led to inconsistent outcomes across regions and institutions. To address these issues, the NCTE Act, 1993 (Act 73 of 1993) established the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as a statutory authority to regulate and standardize teacher education across the country, including curriculum design, infrastructure norms, faculty qualifications, and practicum components. (ii) In 1995, NCTE released its first “National Norms and Standards”, setting a one-year B.Ed. program structure with a 65:35 ratio of theory to practicum, including a 15-week school teaching practice. Eligibility was fixed at a graduate degree in any stream, and basic infrastructure requirements were outlined. While this framework brought much-needed uniformity, it faced criticism for weak enforcement, particularly as private colleges continued to operate without adequate quality controls. Thereafter, the 2002 revision marked a significant shift by encouraging privatization through the recognition of self-financing colleges, loosening faculty qualifications, and further weakening regulatory checks, triggering a surge in low-quality teacher training institutes and inviting judicial scrutiny for turning education into a “degree shop” industry. (iii) The curriculum framework NCFTE-2009, tried to address the mismatch of theory and practical in teacher education, giving more programmes by incorporating the socio-cultural contexts of education, innovative centres of pedagogy and learning, classroom-based research and longer durations of internship. It proposed a 2-year B. Ed. program. The main goal was to improve elementary teacher education by making curriculum planning more participatory, involving all stakeholders. The curriculum was to be organized in a modular way that connects theory with real classroom practice, with more time given to skill development and hands-on training. The approach to training was to be more professional, using better teaching methods, materials, and technology. To achieve all this effectively, a longer course duration was needed–either a four-year integrated degree after Class 12 or a two-year B.Ed. course after graduation. The approach to training was to be more professional, using better teaching methods, materials, and technology. To achieve all this effectively, a longer course duration was needed–either a four-year integrated degree after Class 12 or a two-year B.Ed. course after graduation. (iv) Thereafter, Justice Verma Commission was appointed by the Government of India after the recommendation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) Nos.4247 and 4248/2011 in the case of Rashtrakant T.M.S. and S.B.?.M.C.A. Vidyalaya and Ors. v. Gangadhar Neelkanth Shinde and Ors. The Commission made several recommendations including upgrading the status of teacher education by introducing an integrated teacher education programme of longer duration. (v) The above led to framing and notification of the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. For brevity, several necessary provisions as contained in the regulation are extracted hereinbelow: - ? Implementation Date: Came into force from 2015-16 academic year. ? Core Reform: Replaced all 1-year B.Ed. programs (except for those with prior teacher training). ? Duration: 2 years for standalone B.Ed.; ? New Eligibility Norms: ? 50% in UG/PG (relaxed to 45% for SC/ST/OBC/PWD). (vi) After the above Regulations of 2014, the B.Ed. courses have a curriculum of 2 years as it mentions “The B.Ed. program shall be of a duration of 2 academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of 3 years from the date of admission to the program.” 12. Ld. Sr. Counsel further argues that on the eligibility/qualification of persons who may be appointed as teachers also, the NCTE has issued regulations time to time and amended the same in the line with the principal regulations framed by it for regulating the teacher’s education in the country. In NCTE-23rd August 2010 appointment notification; this no doubt contained a curriculum of one-year studies for B.Ed., however, the NCTE in exercise of the powers under section 23(1) of the RTE Act issued a notification laying down the minimum educational qualifications for the appointment of teachers for class 1 to 8. Notably, the NCTE fixed various minimum eligibility criteria for 6 to 8; and one of the eligibility criteria concerning B.Ed. at paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (ii) - A in clause (a) it has been indicated as under:- “B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)” He further submits that the same qualifications continued till 2014. Notably, the NCTE fixed various minimum eligibility criteria for 6 to 8; and one of the eligibility criteria concerning B.Ed. at paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (ii) - A in clause (a) it has been indicated as under:- “B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)” He further submits that the same qualifications continued till 2014. The amendments in the notifications which were issued after 2010 such as in 2011, 2012 and so on also contained almost the same provisions. 13. Thereafter, in the line with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 which mandated two-year courses to be conducted for B.Ed. education, the NCTE brought a change in the regime and the NCTE notification 2019 had been the outcome. He further submits that the NCTE vide its notification substituted the paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (ii) - A in clause (a) – “B.A./B.Sc. with at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)” with “at least 50% marks in either graduation or post-graduation and B.Ed.”. Thus, the qualification of “1-year B.Ed.” was replaced by “B.Ed.” which after the 2014 regulation can be held to mean inclusive of 2-year B.Ed. 14. He lastly submits that all the Petitioners have obtained 2-years B.Ed. degree as stipulated by the NCTE-Regulations of 2014 and they all fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations read with the NCTE notification issued and gazette on 13.11.2019 from the recognised universities of Jharkhand namely Ranchi University, Vinoba Bhave University, Nilambar Pitambar University, Kolhan University, Sidhu Kanhu University, St. Xaviers College, a deemed University, Ranchi Women's College, a deemed University and so on. He contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has in its various judgments clearly laid down the mandatory effect of the NCTE regulations and the State Government having issued the advertisement in the year 2023 was bound by the above referred regulations of the NCTE, thus, the exclusion of the Petitioners who all have two-years B.Ed. degree with TET qualification are fulfilling the above mandatory regulations issued by the NCTE. Moreover, the State Government also clarified the provisions relating to qualification in the line with the binding regulations of NCTE, thus, the Petitioners have a valid claim for consideration. 15. In support of his arguments, Ld. Sr. degree with TET qualification are fulfilling the above mandatory regulations issued by the NCTE. Moreover, the State Government also clarified the provisions relating to qualification in the line with the binding regulations of NCTE, thus, the Petitioners have a valid claim for consideration. 15. In support of his arguments, Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to the judgments passed in the cases of Ranu Hazarika and Ors. v. State of Assam, (2011) 4 SCC 798 Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P., (2021) 15 SCC 401 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anand Kumar Yadav, (2018) 13 SCC 560 Jai Prakash Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine All 7047 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Kumar Pathak, (2018) 12 SCC 595 State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shashtra, (2006) 9 SCC 1 Vivek Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1746 and Hareram Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar,2020 SCC OnLine Pat 1935. On the issue that If regulations are clarificatory in nature they are deemed to have a retrospective effect, he further referred to the cases of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Ors. vs Dr. Manu and Ors, (2023) 19 SCC 30 State of Bihar and Ors. Ramesh Prasad Verma (dead) through Legal Representatives, (2017) 5 SCC 665 and Koteshwar Vittal Kamath vs K. Rangappa Baliga & Co., (1969) 1 SCC 255 . 16. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall representing the Respondent- JSSC and Ms. Komal Tiwary, A.C. to A.G representing the State Government at the outset contended that the writ is not maintainable and has been pressed against the settled principle of law that when an eligibility criteria has been indicated in the advertisement, the J.S.S.C. is bound to conduct the examination on the said basis and no person has any right to challenge the advertisement, inasmuch as, when they have already participated. Mr. Piprawall further submits that it is settled principle of law that Rule of the Game cannot be changed and any process of appointment starts with the advertisement. He further referred to the advertisement and submits that it was very clear that a person should have passed +2 or Higher secondary or its equivalent examination from a recognised institution and graduate or its equivalent examination and trained from a recognised institute. He further referred to the advertisement and submits that it was very clear that a person should have passed +2 or Higher secondary or its equivalent examination from a recognised institution and graduate or its equivalent examination and trained from a recognised institute. He further submits that in the advertisement itself it has been specifically indicated that the candidate must have passed graduation or its equivalent with minimum 50% marks in subject applied and one-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) or Graduation in applied subject or its equivalent with minimum 45% marks and one-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) who have attended the above training session till 31.05.2009 as per the National Council of Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2002 issued from time to time in this regard. 17. Learned counsel further contended that the bone of contention of these petitioners erupted after the subsequent notification when one-year B.Ed. Course was omitted. The claim of the Petitioners that as against the advertisement, they should be appointed because they are having two-years B.Ed. training; is misconceived. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimal Kumar and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 210 wherein at para 26, the Hon’ble Apex Court framed three questions of law. For brevity the same are quoted hereinbelow: “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. 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. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the first question is for relevance in the instant case. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 32 of its judgment has categorically answered this question and held that the date of issuance of the advertisement would be the date of 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 and with other educational qualifications as specified in the advertisement No.13. For brevity para 32 is quoted hereinbelow: “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.” 19. Learned counsel further referred the last paragraph of the same judgment and submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the order passed by this Court which has permitted the candidates of CTET and STET holders of neighbouring State to participate in ongoing selection process to the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary and Upper Primary School pursuant to advertisement No.13. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel reiterated that when the matter has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the settled principles of service jurisprudence that “Rule of the Game cannot be changed during entire process of selection”, the writ is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State has adopted the argument advanced by the Counsel for JSSC. 20. Learned counsel for the State has adopted the argument advanced by the Counsel for JSSC. 20. Thus, the Respondent Counsels though opposed the prayer of these Petitioners for allowing them for submitting their documents for verification but both could not deny the mandatory conditions of the NCTE regulations and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Courts. 21. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; at the outset, it is clarified that since it is an important issue pertaining to an ongoing selection process, therefore, Counsels representing the respective Respondents on the very first date of hearing on 09.07.2025 had fairly submitted that since it is only a question of law; as such, they prayed for adjournment for only one day and did not chose to file any affidavit and only on their assurance the case was posted on 10.07.2025. It goes without saying that the facts pleaded in the writ petition has been admitted by the counsel for the respondents and the entire case was argued on the question of law and in order to avoid delay and defeat justice and hindrance in the selection process coupled with the fact that the verification of original documents is going on and the petitioners are duly qualified in the written examination and their names were not in the “Reject List” also, this Court after request of both the parties fixed this case on 10.07.2025. 22. It appears that the crux of the argument of Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (a) Nowhere in the advertisement it is mentioned that a candidate who is having two-years B.Ed. course will not be allowed for selection. (b) The act of the Respondent-JSSC in not allowing and/or calling these Petitioners for verification of the original documents in spite of the fact that they are two-years B.Ed. trained; is arbitrary. (c) The State Government has no power to breach the strict guidelines given by the NCTE and the State Universities/other Institutions, recognized by NCTE are bound to impart the courses as per the curriculum prescribed by NCTE which is of two-years for B.Ed. degree. 23. trained; is arbitrary. (c) The State Government has no power to breach the strict guidelines given by the NCTE and the State Universities/other Institutions, recognized by NCTE are bound to impart the courses as per the curriculum prescribed by NCTE which is of two-years for B.Ed. degree. 23. In crux, the learned counsels for the JSSC & State did not respond to the main contention of the Petitioners that whether the Government is empowered to change any clause as mandated by NCTE, but Mr. Piperwall arguing for JSSC has mainly stressed that they are the conducting body of the Government for taking examination and in advertisement it was clearly mentioned that one-year B.Ed. course would be allowed. It is immaterial that the said clause was omitted subsequently. 24. To decide the lis involved in this case, it would be profitable to quote the relevant part of the advertisement: “ ” 25. After critically perusing the clause, it clearly transpires that minimum qualification for a particular post has been advertised as “50% in Graduation with one-year B.Ed. course” amongst other clauses; however, there is no rider in the said advertisement that a person who is having degree of two-years B.Ed. course is debarred. Needless to say, that in the State of Jharkhand, there is no college which is imparting B.Ed. Degree for one-year and obviously, after 2014 regulations of NCTE, the same is not possible also. Even otherwise, coming to the same point that when there is no stipulation that a candidate having two years B.Ed. degree will be debarred; in other words, when the word “Minimum” is used in the advertisement; it is obvious that a person having more than the minimum is not debarred and is eligible as per the same advertisement. There cannot be a classification from amongst a common class of B.Ed. Degree holders only on the ground that some of them have obtained the degree prior to 2014 in one year; and others who have obtained the same B.Ed. Degree after 2014 in two years from the NCTE recognized institutions. Thus, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the action of the Respondents for not calling the Petitioners for verification of the document’s appears to be non est in the eyes of law. 26. Degree after 2014 in two years from the NCTE recognized institutions. Thus, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the action of the Respondents for not calling the Petitioners for verification of the document’s appears to be non est in the eyes of law. 26. To elaborate the aforesaid issue, it would also be profitable to give one example: In many advertisements of Class IV posts, there is a limit and/or rider of higher qualification such as, a candidate has to be Non-Matric or Matriculate only, for the purpose of that particular post. Here, it is not such a case. When there is no maximum limit or a rider for the post in question, then this Court fails to understand under which law the Petitioners are being prohibited from verification of their documents. 27. There is no quarrel with the argument of learned counsel for JSSC that “rule of the game cannot be changed during entire selection process” and the selection process has to be guided by the advertisement; but perhaps the Respondents have failed to appreciate that the advertisement and the concerned eligibility criteria itself is mentioning “minimum eligibility qualification” and then it requires “minimum 50% in graduation or equivalent course and one-year B.Ed. course”. Nowhere in the advertisement, it is mentioned that a person who is having B.Ed. Degree for two years will be debarred from participation. 28. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that, a clarification was also sought from the helpdesk of the JSSC wherein it was clearly stated that you should select any 2 years B.Ed. courses from the drop-down and send a hand-written application to JSSC office in this regard (Refer Page-115 of the Writ Application). For brevity the e-mail copy is extracted hereinbelow: “Dear applicant I hope this email finds you well. After sharing your problem with the officer, he has suggested that you should Select any 2years B.ed courses from the drop-down and send a hand written application to jssc office in this regard that no option is showing for 2years B.ed degree for general students. Team JSSC” 29. Thus, on the 1st & 2nd limb of argument itself that when there is no rider and/or maximum limit fixed in the advertisement for a candidate having two years B.Ed. Team JSSC” 29. Thus, on the 1st & 2nd limb of argument itself that when there is no rider and/or maximum limit fixed in the advertisement for a candidate having two years B.Ed. degree; the action of the Respondents is arbitrary, goes in favour of these Petitioners and the Respondents are not justified for non-calling these Petitioners for verification of their documents who are having 2 years B.Ed. Degree from recognized NCTE Universities/Institutions. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 336 wherein at para-32, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “32. Reading the language of the statutory provision in a literal sense and applying the golden rule of interpretation, this is the only logical and permissible interpretation. Hence, we have no hesitation in concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course in "Chemistry" subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must possess a master's degree in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of food technology; dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology: agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified for theFSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post- graduation or doctorate degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master's or a doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.” 30. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, even by going through the advertisement, there is no logic behind the action of the respondents in not allowing these petitioners for verification of documents when all these petitioners have duly qualified the written examination and further their names were also not in the rejection list published by the JSSC (Annexure-8). 31. Now, coming to the 3rd limb of the argument; though in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the action of the Respondents is illegal; however, sitting under Article 226, this Court cannot shut its eyes on the action of the Respondents with regards to non-compliance of the guidelines given by the NCTE which is the apex body for issuing guidelines with regard to appointment of any teacher. 32. 32. In so far as the field of teachers’ education in India is concerned; it is very much covered under the regime of NCTE Act and NCTE Regulations which have parliamentary backing and are binding. After, much deliberation and development as discussed above the one-year B.Ed. Course has been omitted by the State of Jharkhand also after the NCTE regulations of 2014. The 2019 notification of NCTE also prescribes minimum eligibility of the teachers as B.Ed. and it also does not make distinction amongst one year or two years B.Ed. degree. In other words, all B.Ed. degrees granted by institution recognized by the NCTE are held to be valid. This Court cannot give a restrictive meaning to the minimum eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement to oust the valid B.Ed. Degree holders just because they are having 2 years course instead of one year. 33. As stated hereinabove, the main goal was to improve teacher education by making curriculum planning more participatory, involving all stakeholders. The curriculum was to be organized in a modular way that connects theory with real classroom practice, with more time given to skill development and hands-on-training. Even Justice Verma Commission was appointed by the Government of India after the recommendation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C) Nos.4247 and 4248/2011. Justice Verma commission made several recommendations which led to framing and notification of the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. After a long-drawn experiments solely for the purpose of improving the quality; Regulations 2014 has been implemented in which the B.Ed. courses have a curriculum of 2 years. 34. In the line with the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 which mandated two-year courses to be conducted for B.Ed. education, the NCTE brought a change in the regime and the NCTE notification 2019 had been the outcome. Needless to say, the NCTE is the Apex body to regulate teachers education in the country. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in its various judgments clearly laid down the mandatory effect of the NCTE regulations and the State Government having issued the advertisement in the year 2023 was bound by the above referred regulations of the NCTE. In this regard reference may be made to few Judgments. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in its various judgments clearly laid down the mandatory effect of the NCTE regulations and the State Government having issued the advertisement in the year 2023 was bound by the above referred regulations of the NCTE. In this regard reference may be made to few Judgments. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in its various judgments particularly in Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P. (2021) 15 SCC 401 , State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shashtra (2006) 9 SCC 1 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018) 12 SCC 595, clearly laid down the mandatory effect of the NCTE regulations and the State Government having issued the advertisement in the year 2023 was bound by the above referred regulations of the NCTE, thus, the exclusion of the Petitioners who all have two-years B.Ed. degree with TET qualification are fulfilling the above mandatory regulations issued by the NCTE. Moreover, the State Government also clarified the provisions relating to qualification in the line with the binding regulations of NCTE; thus, the Petitioners have a valid claim for consideration. Consequently, non-compliance of the guideline given by the NCTE which is the apex body for issuing guidelines with regard to appointment of any teacher; is also non-est in the eye of law. Thus, on both counts, the action of the Respondents in not calling the Petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. 35. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed. The Respondent JSSC is directed to call these Petitioners for verification of documents. Further, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations, it is directed that the JSSC shall also call all those other candidates who are otherwise qualified; but have been debarred from document verification on the ground of 2 years B.Ed. Degree, shall also be called for documents verification. 36. Needless to say, the entire selection process is at the stage of documents verification only. Merely by verification, none of the Petitioners or any similar type of candidates having 2 years B.Ed. Degree acquires any right of selection, if they are not otherwise qualified. 37. As a result, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.