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 allowed the appointment of candidates whose names were included in select panels under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir, holding that closure of the scheme cannot operate retrospectively to deprive them of engagement.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to balance the claims of candidates awaiting appointment with the statutory requirement of maintaining minimum standards in elementary education under the Right to Education Act.
The Court directed that engagement orders be issued to eligible candidates, subject to their acquiring the prescribed minimum qualifications, including clearing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), within three years and in a maximum of three attempts from the date of appointment.
Court Says Statutory Qualifications Must Be Met
While permitting appointment of the candidates, the Supreme Court clarified that compliance with statutory qualification requirements remains mandatory.
The Court directed that candidates appointed under the ReT Scheme must obtain the minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, including passing the TET, within the stipulated period.
The Court further directed the State to conduct the TET every year so that the appointed candidates are able to comply with the qualification requirement.
Also Read: Supreme Court Sends Tax Appeals Back To High Courts
ReT Scheme Was Closed In November 2018
The Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme was introduced in 2000 to address shortage of teachers in remote and underserved areas by engaging local persons for elementary education.
The scheme was formally closed on November 16, 2018. At the same time, the Government cancelled all advertisements and select panels in cases where engagement orders had not yet been issued.
Several candidates challenged the closure order, claiming that their placement in select panels created a vested right to appointment.
The High Court upheld the closure order but carved out limited exceptions. Both the State and the affected candidates thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Pendency Of Litigation Cannot Be Sole Ground To Deny Appointment
The Supreme Court considered whether candidates whose names were included in approved select panels, but who could not be appointed due to court stays or pending litigation, could be denied engagement after closure of the scheme.
Rejecting the State’s stand, the Court held that candidates could not be penalised for circumstances beyond their control.
The Bench observed:
“Mere pendency of litigation concerning a candidate is an extraneous circumstance and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made a basis for such classification.”
The Court held that pendency of litigation had no rational connection with the objective of the closure order, which was stated to be the removal of irregularities such as fake mark-sheets, fabricated degrees and forged documents.
Classification Held Arbitrary Under Article 14
The Supreme Court found that the closure order created an arbitrary classification between similarly situated candidates whose names appeared in select panels.
The Court held that candidates against whom no litigation was pending on the date of closure were issued engagement orders, while candidates against whom litigation was pending were denied engagement.
The Bench ruled that such classification violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court observed:
“The object and purpose of the Closure Order, as stated by the State/Administration themselves in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit dated 23.02.2026, is to address and remedy the menace of fake mark-sheets, fabricated degrees, and forged documents, which had led to a deterioration in the standard of education. This being the object of the Closure Order, the classification sought to be created between – (i) candidates against whom no litigation was pending as on the date of the Closure Order, who have been issued engagement orders; and (ii) candidates against whom litigation happened to be pending as on the date of the Closure Order, who have been denied engagement orders, bears no rational nexus whatsoever with the said object.”
Engagement Orders To Be Issued Within Eight Weeks
Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court directed the State to issue engagement orders to all eligible candidates within eight weeks.
The Court further held that if such candidates clear the TET within the prescribed period, their seniority will be determined on the basis of their original position in the select panel and not from the date of appointment.
However, the Court clarified that candidates who fail to obtain the required qualifications within three years and three attempts may face termination of service.
The Bench emphasised that the constitutional obligation to provide quality education under Article 21A cannot be compromised.
Also Read: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Undertrial Jailed Nearly 9 Years
Directions Apply To Similarly Situated Candidates
The Supreme Court stated that its directions would apply to all similarly situated candidates covered by the relevant advertisements, even if they were not parties before the Court.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the judgment should not be treated as reviving the ReT Scheme.
It also made clear that the ruling does not create rights in favour of persons who were not part of a prepared select panel or who did not approach the Court in time.
The Court added:
“…these directions are being issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this cas invoking the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and it shall not be treated as precedent in any manner whatsoever.”
Accordingly, the plea was disposed of.
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.
Also Read: Supreme Court Approves Relocation of Deer from Delhi Park to Rajasthan
