Mohd. Abbas Malik & Anr. vs State Of J&K & Ors.

The petitioners through the medium of instant petition have sought the following reliefs:

05. 2014 and also communication No. CEO/G/RET/765 dated 08. 07. 2014 issued by the respondent No. 3.

The facts, in brief, are that Petitioner No. 1, Mohd. Abbas Malik, passed the Secondary School Examination in 2003 and Higher Secondary (10+2) Examination in 2006 from the J&K State Board of School Education. He obtained his B.A. and M.A. (Urdu) degrees from the University of Jammu in 2008 and 2011, respectively, and B.Ed. from the University of Kashmir in February 2014. Similarly, Petitioner No. 2, Mumtaz Ali, passed the Secondary School Examination in 2005 and Higher Secondary (10+2) Examination in 2007 from the J&K State Board of School Education, obtained his B.A. and M.A. (Urdu) degrees from the University of Jammu in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and B.Ed. from the University of Kashmir in February 2014. Both petitioners are residents of Village Roat, an area declared socially and economically backward under SRO 294 of 2005.

Respondent No. 3 issued Advertisement Notice No. 29972-78 dated 08.02.2014, inviting applications for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Teachers in various subjects, including Urdu and Social Studies, in different Education Zones of District Doda. The advertisement included three posts at UPS Kudhal, Education Zone Assar, at Serial No. 5. Applications were required to be submitted before the concerned ZEO within 15 days of publication of the advertisement. Since the notice was published on 10.02.2014, the original cut-off date was 25.02.2014. Subsequently, owing to heavy snowfall and difficult terrain, the last date was extended vide Notification No. CEO/D/RET/31210-26 dated 25.02.2014 up to 03.03.2014.

The advertisement specifically provided that qualifications acquired after the cut-off date would not be considered. Consequently, all qualifications acquired on or before 03.03.2014 were required to be taken into account for determining the eligibility and merit of the candidates. The petitioners submitted their applications within time and disclosed all their qualifications, including their B.Ed. qualification from the University of Kashmir. The result of their B.Ed. examination had already been declared by the University and uploaded on its official website on 22.02.2014, i.e. well before the extended cut-off date. The declaration of the result was duly certified by the Controller of Examinations and the relevant result sheet was annexed with the applications.

It is specific case of the petitioners that respondent No. 4, while preparing the tentative panel, included the names of the petitioners at Serial Nos. 2 and 4 but marked them as “rejected” on the ground that their B.Ed. marks cards had not been produced by the cut-off date. The petitioners' names were consequently excluded from the select panel. The panel, however, was not approved by the VLEC, as the members of the Committee found it inconsistent with the merit of the candidates. Instead of correcting the panel in accordance with the applicable criteria, Respondent No. 4 failed to take any further action. The petitioners thereafter submitted representations before Respondent No. 3 seeking consideration of their B.Ed. qualification, which had admittedly been acquired before the cut-off date.

It is further case of the petitioners is that upon consideration of the petitioners' objections, Respondent No. 3 issued a detailed order/clarification bearing No. CEO/D/RET/322-334 dated 28.05.2014, holding that the petitioners were eligible for consideration and directed Respondent No. 4 to undertake fresh empanelment by considering the merit of all candidates whose B.Ed. results had been declared before 03.03.2014. As Respondent No. 4 failed to comply with the aforesaid direction, Respondent No. 3 issued an another communication bearing No. CEO/D/RET/765 dated 08.07.2014 reiterating the direction for fresh empanelment.

In view of the continued inaction, the petitioners approached this Court in SWP No. 2167/2014, Mudassar Hussain & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., which was disposed of vide judgment dated 19.08.2014 with a direction to Respondent No. 4 to prepare a fresh panel after considering the merit of all candidates whose B.Ed results had been declared before 03.03.2014. The exercise was required to be completed within 15 days of receipt of the judgment.

It is further pleaded that despite the clear mandate of the judgment, Respondent No. 4 failed to comply with the aforesaid direction, compelling the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings in COA (SWP) No. 518/2014, which remain pending. In the statement of facts filed in the contempt proceedings, Respondent No. 4 sought to justify the non-compliance on the ground of interim directions passed in SWP No. 3323/2014, Mohd. Jabbar v. State of J&K & Ors., whereby the clarification dated 28.05.2014 was directed not to be acted upon till the next date of hearing.

Subsequently, the Government issued Order No. 631-Edu of 2015 dated 29.12.2015 providing for a screening test to assess the teaching aptitude of RET/RRET candidates who had obtained degrees through Study Centres/Distance Mode, as well as persons figuring in fresh RET panels. This was followed by Government Order No. 184-Edu of 2016 dated 24.05.2016, whereby the screening test was restricted, inter alia, to RETs who had obtained degrees through Study Centres and persons figuring in fresh RET panels where the selection process had been initiated, subject to the outcome of cases pending before the High Court. Thereafter, Government Order No. 466-Edu of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 scheduled the screening test for 24.12.2016 at Jammu and Srinagar, though the test was subsequently postponed without a fresh date being notified.

The petitioners' panel was also sought to be subjected to the said screening test, notwithstanding that the selection process had commenced pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2014, much prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Government Orders. No requirement of any screening test existed either under the RET selection guidelines applicable to the petitioners' selection or under the advertisement notice. The petitioners had already participated in the selection process under the then-prevailing rules and, on the basis of their qualifications and merit, were entitled to consideration in accordance with those rules.

The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid government order No. 184-Edu of 2016 dated 24.05.2016 as well as Government order No. 466-Edu of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 by virtue of which, amongst others the select penal in question was illegally and arbitrarily subjected to screening for the purpose of engagement as RET in Government UPS Kudhal notwithstanding the fact that the selection process in question has been initiated much before the issuance of the impugned Government orders. Therefore, it is pleaded that the Government orders dated 24.05.2016 and 29.11.2016 are totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and are thus liable to be quashed.

Mr. M Y Akhoon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that upon consideration of the petitioners' objections, Respondent No. 3 issued a detailed order/clarification bearing No. CEO/D/RET/322-334 dated 28.05.2014, holding that the petitioners were eligible for consideration and directed Respondent No. 4 to undertake fresh empanelment by considering the merit of all candidates whose B.Ed. results had been declared before 03.03.2014. As Respondent No. 4 failed to comply with the aforesaid direction, Respondent No. 3 issued another communication bearing No. CEO/D/RET/765 dated 08.07.2014 reiterating the direction for fresh empanelment.

It is further contended that, at the commencement of the selection process in the present case, no screening test was prescribed either under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Teacher Policy/Guidelines or in the advertisement notice pursuant to which the petitioners sought consideration for selection and appointment. In view of the settled legal position that the conditions of recruitment cannot be altered after the selection process has commenced, the action of the respondents in subsequently issuing the aforesaid Government Orders and applying the same retrospectively to the petitioners’ selection is legally impermissible. Such action amounts to a change in the rules of the game midway through the selection process and is, therefore, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. The impugned action is consequently liable to be quashed.

It is further contended that it is a settled proposition of law that an advertisement or notification inviting applications constitutes a representation by the recruiting authority to the public, and the authority is bound to adhere to the eligibility conditions and criteria stipulated therein. The conditions governing the selection process cannot be altered to the prejudice of candidates after the process has commenced. In the present case, neither the advertisement notice nor the applicable RET/SSA Policy/Guidelines prescribed any requirement of a screening test. The respondents, therefore, could not subsequently introduce such a requirement and subject the petitioners to a test that did not form part of the selection criteria at the time their candidature was invited and considered.

Mr. Akhoon, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that the impugned Government Orders, purportedly issued in compliance with the judgment dated 14.05.2016 in Fazal Ahmad Khan v. State of J&K & Others, are not sustainable in law. According to learned counsel, the said judgment, when read in its proper context, directed the holding of a mandatory screening test only in respect of RET/SSA teachers who had entered Government service on the basis of degrees obtained from study centres illegally operating within the State of Jammu and Kashmir or elsewhere, as well as persons figuring in the selection panels for fresh engagement. The judgment did not direct that every RET/SSA candidate, irrespective of the circumstances of his or her candidature, be subjected to a screening test. Therefore, the respondents could not rely upon the said judgment as authority for imposing a screening test universally upon the petitioners. The directions contained in the judgment dated 14.05.2016 have to be understood in the factual and legal context in which they were issued, and cannot be extended beyond their specific scope so as to alter the conditions of an already commenced selection process.

Record further reveals that this Court vide order dated 31.12.2016 while entertaining the instant matter, by way of interim direction, has passed the following direction:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Also heard Mr. Anishwar Chatterji Koul, learned GA as well as Mr. Achal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents 5 and 6.

During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors vs Saba Wani” 2026 INSC 439 has delivered a judgment dated 30.04.2026 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the petition preferred by the Union Territory of J&K & Ors., has been pleased to issue the following directions:

Before adverting to the binding effect of the aforesaid judgment on the claim of the petitioners, it is pertinent to notice the nature of the relief sought in the present petition. The petitioners through the medium of instant petition seek quashing of the Government order No. 184-Edu of 2016 dated 24.05.2016 and Government order No. 466-Edu of 2016 dated 29.11.2016 by virtue of which those candidates who are empanelled in the select lists/panels, the selection process whereof have been initiated much before the passing of the impugned orders, are being subjected to a screening test for appointment to the post of Rehbar-e-taleem teachers.

The petitioners consequently seek a direction restraining the official respondents more particularly respondent No.4 from either recommending the names of private respondents 5 and 6 for engagement without first considering the higher qualification of the petitioners or recommending the said private respondents for conduct of a screening test. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioners would necessarily require an examination of the disputed claims relating to the eligibility and qualifications of the candidates who were selected and empanelled, followed by a fresh exercise for determining the petitioners’ entitlement to selection and appointment under the erstwhile ReT Scheme which has since been closed.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioners were to succeed in establishing any infirmity in the qualifications or eligibility of the private respondents, the same by itself cannot result in a direction for their appointment at this stage. Acceptance of the petitioners’ prayer would necessarily entail disturbing the prepared select panel, reopening the selection process and creating a fresh right of selection and appointment in favour of the petitioners, who admittedly does not figure in the select panel.

The interim direction passed by this Court during the pendency of the petition also cannot be construed as conferring any substantive or vested right of appointment upon the petitioners. Such interim protection was intended only to preserve the position during the pendency of the proceedings and cannot be treated as a basis for reviving the erstwhile ReT Scheme after its closure.

More importantly, in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani”, no direction can now be issued which would have the effect of reopening the selection process or creating a fresh right of appointment in favour of a candidate who was not part of the prepared select panel. Any such direction would, therefore, amount to reviving the closed ReT Scheme and would run contrary to the express directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Admittedly, the petitioners do not figure in the select panel. Therefore, in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani”, referred to hereinabove, they cannot claim any right to appointment under the erstwhile ReT Scheme. The directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are confined to the candidates whose names figure in the prepared select panels and do not create or confer any right upon a candidate who was not part of such select panel. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage.

In addition, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also made it clear that the candidates so appointed as per the directions (a) and (b) from the select panel under the RET scheme are directed to acquire minimum qualification prescribed under NCTE regulations and notifications including the qualified TET within three years and three attempts from the date of their engagements/appointments. As such, the directions (a) to (j) referred hereinabove, shall be applicable strictly in favour of those candidates whose names figured in the select panel and admittedly in the instant case, the petitioners nowhere figure in the select panel, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage.

Therefore, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors vs Saba Wani” 2026 INSC 439, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and deserves dismissal, as the relief prayed for by the petitioners at this stage, cannot be granted, which if done would tantamount to reviving the RET Scheme and will be in direct conflict with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Thus, viewed from any angle, the writ petition, in the light of the aforesaid development and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is dismissed alongwith all connected applications.

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.