The Supreme Court held that closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme cannot retrospectively deny appointment to candidates already placed in approved select panels, but directed them to acquire minimum qualifications, including TET clearance, within three years and three attempts.
Supreme Court Grants Relief To ReT Select Panel Candidates
The Supreme Court has granted relief to candidates selected under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court said the closure of the scheme cannot operate retrospectively.
It held that candidates already included in select panels cannot lose their chance of engagement only because the scheme later closed.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar invoked Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court balanced two concerns.
First, it considered the claims of candidates awaiting appointment.
Second, it protected the statutory requirement of minimum standards in elementary education under the Right to Education Act.
Candidates Must Clear TET Within Three Years
The Supreme Court directed the State to issue engagement orders to eligible candidates.
However, the Court made the appointments subject to minimum qualification requirements.
The candidates must acquire the prescribed qualifications within three years from appointment.
They must also clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within that period.
The Court allowed a maximum of three attempts.
Statutory Qualifications Remain Mandatory
The Supreme Court clarified that candidates cannot avoid statutory qualifications.
It directed appointed ReT candidates to obtain the minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education.
This includes passing the TET.
The Court also directed the State to conduct the TET every year.
This will allow appointed candidates to meet the qualification requirement within time.
ReT Scheme Closed In November 2018
The Government introduced the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme in 2000.
The scheme aimed to address teacher shortages in remote and underserved areas.
It engaged local persons for elementary education.
The Government closed the scheme on November 16, 2018.
It also cancelled all advertisements and select panels where engagement orders had not been issued.
Several candidates challenged the closure order.
They argued that their names in select panels created a vested right to appointment.
The High Court upheld the closure order.
However, it carved out limited exceptions.
Both the State and affected candidates then approached the Supreme Court.
Litigation Pendency Cannot Defeat Appointment
The Supreme Court considered an important issue.
It examined whether candidates in approved select panels could lose appointment because of court stays or pending litigation.
The Court rejected the State’s stand.
It said candidates cannot suffer for circumstances beyond their control.
The Court said litigation pendency had no rational link with the purpose of the closure order.
According to the State, the closure order aimed to address fake mark-sheets, fabricated degrees and forged documents.
Classification Violated Article 14, Says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found the classification arbitrary.
It noted that the closure order treated similarly placed candidates differently.
Candidates without pending litigation received engagement orders.
Candidates with pending litigation did not receive engagement orders.
The Bench held that this violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
It further said that the distinction between candidates with pending litigation and candidates without pending litigation had no rational nexus with that object.
Engagement Orders To Be Issued Within Eight Weeks
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 and issued specific directions.
It directed the State to issue engagement orders to all eligible candidates within eight weeks.
The Court also protected their seniority.
If candidates clear the TET within the prescribed period, their seniority will follow their original position in the select panel.
Their seniority will not run from the date of appointment.
However, the Court added a warning.
Candidates who fail to obtain the required qualifications within three years and three attempts may face termination.
The Bench said the constitutional duty to provide quality education under Article 21A cannot be compromised.
Directions Apply To Similarly Situated Candidates
The Supreme Court said its directions will also apply to similarly situated candidates.
This includes candidates covered by the relevant advertisements, even if they were not parties before the Court.
At the same time, the Court made an important clarification.
The judgment will not revive the ReT Scheme.
It will also not create rights for persons who were never part of a prepared select panel.
The Court also excluded those who did not approach the Court in time.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the plea.
Case Details
Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. v. Saba Wani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 450
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Appearance
For the Petitioner(s):
Mr. Balwant Singh Billowira, Adv.; Ms. Kaninika Majumder, Adv.; Ms. Arpita Mishra, Adv.; Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR; Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G.; Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv.; Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR; Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.; Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.; Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Simran Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Deepika Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Shravan Bagora, Adv.
Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv.; Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv.; Mr. Sangham Ahmed, Adv.; Mr. Saif Naseem, Adv.; Mr. Dev Saran, Adv.; Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv.; Ms. Shama Usmani, Adv.; Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv.; M/s Equity Lex Associates, AOR; Mr. Aseem Kumar Katoch, Adv.; Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR.
For the Respondent(s):
Ms. Sanjana Saddy, AOR; Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv.; Mr. Shakeel Sarwar Wani, Adv.; Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR; Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv.; Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv.; Ms. Shikha John, Adv.; Mr. Anand Singh, Adv.; Mr. Arindam Sarin, Adv.; Mrs. P.S. Vijayadharni, Adv.; Mr. Sanjeev Saxena, Adv.; Ms. Priya Nair, Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR; Mr. Manik Mahey, Adv.; Mr. Vivek Rajan D.B., Adv.; Ms. Nazarat Fatima, Adv.; Ms. Syed Nazarat Fatima, Adv.; Mr. Tripurari Ray, Adv.; Mr. Balwant Singh Billowira, Adv.; Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv.; Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Adv.; Ms. Arpita Mishra, Adv.; Ms. Kaninika Majumder, Adv.; Mr. Manu Shanker Mishra, AOR; Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR; Mr. Aseem Kumar Katoch, Adv.; Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR; Mr. Siddharth Jain, AOR; Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, Adv.; Mr. Dhanaeswar Gudapalli, Adv.; Mr. Satyeyu Veer, Adv.; Mr. Bamandla Venkatesh, Adv.; Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR.
