Supreme Court: In a batch of appeals concerning the closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, a Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., modified the judgment of the High Court which had upheld the validity of Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16 November 2018. While affirming the closure of the scheme, the Court held that denial of engagement to candidates solely on the ground of pendency of litigation as on the date of the closure order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Emphasising the impermissibility of such classification, the Court observed that mere pendency of litigation constitutes an extraneous factor having no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the closure order. At the same time, the Court underscored the primacy of the statutory framework under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education, reiterating that minimum qualifications, including the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), are mandatory for appointment as teachers. Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court devised a balanced mechanism to protect the rights of candidates placed in select panels while ensuring compliance with statutory educational standards.
Also Read: Labour and Service Law April 2026 Roundup
Background
The present batch of appeals revolves around the legality and effect of Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16 November 2018, by which the State Government formally closed the ReT Scheme and cancelled all pending advertisement notices and select panels where engagement orders had not been issued. Prior to the issuance of the closure order, recruitment processes under the ReT Scheme had progressed in several cases, and select panels had been prepared. However, in many instances, appointments could not be finalised owing to pending litigation.
Aggrieved candidates, whose names figured in such select panels but who had not been formally engaged, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the closure order. Their primary contention was that inclusion in a duly prepared select panel conferred a vested right to appointment, which could not be taken away by a subsequent executive decision. The High Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the closure order, issued certain clarifications and carved out limited exceptions. It held that the closure order would not affect (i) cases where select panels had already been acted upon and engagement orders issued; (ii) cases where courts had already held, or would hold, candidates entitled to engagement; and (iii) cases where approved select panels could not be acted upon solely due to pending litigation. At the same time, it ruled that claims arising out of tentative merit lists or unfinalised select panels would not survive the closure of the scheme.
Challenging the High Court’s judgment, the State assailed the exceptions carved out particularly those protecting candidates whose panels could not be acted upon due to litigation, while the candidates questioned the upholding of the closure order itself. These cross-appeals have led to the present adjudication.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court examined the scheme and the factual matrix in light of the affidavits filed by the State and noted that the sole ground for non-issuance of engagement orders to certain candidates was the pendency of litigation as on the date of the closure order dated 16 November 2018. The Court held that such a classification between candidates (i) those against whom no litigation was pending and who were granted engagement, and (ii) those against whom litigation was pending and who were denied engagement does not withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Applying the settled twin-test of reasonable classification, the Court observed that mere pendency of litigation is an extraneous circumstance and bears no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the closure order, namely, to curb irregularities such as fake mark-sheets and forged documents.
Notwithstanding the above, the Court also took into account the statutory regime ushered in by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education under Section 23 thereof. Relying upon its precedent, the Court reiterated that possession of minimum qualifications, including qualification of the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), is mandatory for appointment as a teacher, and even in-service teachers must acquire such qualifications within a stipulated time-frame.
The Court, having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon perusal of the proposal submitted by the learned ASG along with the suggestions of the learned Senior Counsels for the candidates, observed that the proposal seeks to accommodate merit-holders who were not engaged due to stay orders or pending litigation as on the date of the Closure Order, subject to their subsequently meeting the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE under Section 23 of the RTE Act. The Court noted that such a pragmatic approach adopted by the State is appreciable, particularly in view of its obligation to act with utmost fairness in matters of appointment. Accordingly, in order to balance the equities and render complete justice in the present batch of appeals, the Court held it to be a fit case for invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, especially as the outcome would not only determine the fate of the candidates before it but also have a bearing on the realization of the constitutional guarantee of the right to quality education under Article 21-A.
The Court further observed that teachers appointed under the scheme, while dispensing education, ought to be paid due remuneration; however, the existing honorarium of Rs. 3,000/- was noted to be too low, particularly when minimum wages are higher. It was therefore observed that the State Government is expected to take note of the situation and, in the interest of ensuring quality education, take an appropriate decision, in its discretion, with respect to enhancement of the honorarium.
Decision
The Court thus issued the following directions:
-
The Closure Order of ReT Scheme dated 16 November 2018 for cancellation/withdrawal shall not retrospectively impair the right of the candidates found placed in the select panel, and such candidates shall be issued engagement/appointment orders as per their position in the select panel having regard to available vacancies.
-
The State shall issue formal engagement orders to the candidates of the select panel within a period of eight weeks.
-
Candidates appointed from the select panel under the ReT Scheme are directed to acquire minimum qualification prescribed under NCTE Regulations and Notifications, including to qualify the TET, within 3 years and 3 attempts, and the State shall organize the TET annually.
-
After successfully acquiring the minimum qualification and passing TET within the prescribed time, services of such appointees shall be regularized on completion of two years of service thereafter.
-
The above requirement shall also apply to similarly situated candidates already appointed after 23 August 2010 and prior to the Closure Order who do not possess minimum qualifications, who must acquire the same within the stipulated time.
-
Once such candidates/appointees acquire prescribed qualifications and qualify TET, their seniority shall be redrawn maintaining their respective positions in the select panels, uninfluenced by the date of appointment, joining or regularization.
-
If candidates/appointees fail to acquire requisite qualifications or qualify TET within the prescribed period, the State shall be at liberty to dispense with their services, and such candidates shall have no claim to seniority or regularization.
-
The directions are in rem and shall apply mutatis mutandis to all similarly situated candidates, including those appointed pursuant to the 74 advertisements.
-
These directions shall apply to candidates litigating in any Court prior to the date of judgment, and those who have not approached the Court shall not acquire any fresh cause of action.
-
This judgment shall not be construed as reviving the ReT Scheme or conferring any right upon candidates not part of a select panel,and is issued under Article 142 in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
-
The State Government shall consider taking an appropriate decision with respect to revision of honorarium of such teachers.
[State (UT of J&K) v. Saba Wani, SLP (Civil) No. 12210 of 2023, decided on 30-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Buy Constitution of India HERE
