The Supreme Court has allowed the appointment of candidates placed in select panels under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir, holding that the closure of the scheme cannot retrospectively deprive them of appointment. The Court directed that such candidates be issued engagement orders, subject to acquiring the minimum qualifications, including passing the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), within three years and three attempts.
A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to balance the equities between candidates awaiting appointment and the statutory requirement of maintaining minimum teaching standards under the Right to Education Act.
While permitting appointments, the Court emphasised that compliance with statutory qualification norms remains essential. It therefore directed that candidates appointed under the scheme must acquire the minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, including clearing the TET, within three years and three attempts from the date of appointment.
The ReT Scheme was introduced in 2000 to address the shortage of teachers in remote and underserved areas by engaging local individuals to provide elementary education. The scheme was formally closed on November 16, 2018, with the Government simultaneously cancelling all advertisements and select panels where engagement orders had not yet been issued.
Several candidates challenged the closure order, contending 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 affected candidates approached the Supreme Court.
Pendency Of Litigation Not A Valid Basis For Denial Of Appointment The Supreme Court Court held that their candidature could not be denied solely on the ground that litigation was pending at the time the scheme was closed. “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.”, observed the bench.
