AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant-petitioner instituted SWP No. 2734/2012 seeking, inter alia, quashing of the final panel prepared for selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Teacher in Science Stream for UPS Sharore, falling under Village Mandole, Education Zone Bhagwah, insofar as it pertained to private respondent No.5, which panel was endorsed by respondent No.2 on 01.10.2010. The applicant also challenged engagement order No. ZEO/B/2071-74 dated 26.10.2012, whereby private respondent No.5 came to be engaged as ReT Teacher in the said school.
The case of the applicant was that respondent No.5 was less meritorious than the applicant, particularly in the Science subject at the 10+2 level, and that the applicant, being the more meritorious candidate, was entitled to be selected and engaged against the post.
On 27.12.2012, this Court directed that the engagement of respondent No.5 would remain subject to the outcome of the application seeking interim relief. Thereafter, on 23.09.2014, a final opportunity was granted to the respondents to file their response, whereafter objections came to be filed by respondents 1 to 4.
The writ petition was thereafter listed on 17.10.2014 but could not be taken up for want of time. It came to be listed again only on 04.02.2025. On the said date, learned counsel for the applicant could not appear and, on the statement of the official respondents that the petition had become infructuous with the efflux of time and in view of the closure of the ReT Scheme and the pendency of the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the writ petition was dismissed.
The applicant has now filed the present application seeking recall of the order dated 04.02.2025. It is pleaded that the absence of learned counsel on the said date was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred on account of a bona fide oversight whereby the matter was not marked in the counsel's cause list.
It is further stated that the applicant came to know of the dismissal only on 12.07.2026, upon making an inquiry regarding the status of the petition, and thereafter took immediate steps for filing the present application.
In the interregnum, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani, o f SLP ( Civil) N o . 12210 of 2023, decided on 30.04.2026, considered the effect of the closure of the ReT Scheme upon candidates whose names figured in select panels. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the closure order dated 16.11.2018 would not retrospectively impair the rights of candidates found in the select panel and directed that such candidates be issued engagement orders according to their position in the select panel, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
SUBMISSIONS
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the writ petition could not have been dismissed merely on the ground of efflux of time or closure of the ReT Scheme, particularly when the grievance raised therein was directed against the legality of the selection and engagement of respondent No.5 and the applicant claimed entitlement on the basis of her higher merit.
Learned counsel submits that the controversy involved in the writ petition is distinct from the controversy considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the applicant had approached this Court much prior to the closure of the ReT Scheme. It is further submitted that the applicant was litigating her claim against the selection of respondent No.5 and that the dismissal of the writ petition without consideration on merits would cause serious prejudice to her.
It is also submitted that the applicant's counsel had otherwise been appearing in the matter and that the absence on 04.02.2025 was an isolated occurrence occasioned by bona fide oversight. It is, therefore, urged that the applicant ought not to be made to suffer for such non-appearance, particularly when the writ petition raises a substantive challenge to the selection.
Learned counsel accordingly submits that sufficient cause is made out for recalling the order dated 04.02.2025 and restoring the writ petition for consideration on merits.
ANALYSIS
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.
The record shows that the writ petition had remained pending before this Court for several years. The applicant had challenged the selection and subsequent engagement of private respondent No.5 and had specifically asserted that she was more meritorious for the post in question. The respondents had also entered appearance and filed their objections.
The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 04.02.2025 in the absence of learned counsel for the applicant, principally on the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that the matter had become infructuous on account of the efflux of time, closure of the ReT Scheme, and the pendency of the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The explanation furnished by the applicant for the absence of her counsel is that the listing of the matter was missed due to a bona fide oversight. There is nothing on record to suggest that the non-appearance was deliberate or intended to abandon the proceedings. On the contrary, the applicant asserts that she took steps for recall upon acquiring knowledge of the dismissal.
More importantly, the legal position which formed one of the grounds for treating the petition as infructuous has since undergone clarification by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saba Wani supra. The Supreme Court has expressly held that the closure of the ReT Scheme cannot retrospectively impair the rights of candidates whose names figured in the prepared select panels. The directions were also made applicable to candidates litigating before courts in cases instituted prior to the judgment. The relevant part of the judgement supra is reproduced as under:
“(a)The Closure Order of ReT Scheme dated 16.11.2018 for cancellation/withdrawals shall not retrospectively impair the right of the candidates found placed in the select panel. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the candidates placed in respective select panels shall be issued engagement/appointment orders as per their position in the select panel having regard to the available vacancies.
(b)The State shall issue the formal engagement orders to the candidates of select panel within a period of eight weeks in terms of the direction (a) above.
(c)Candidates appointed as per 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 to qualify the TET, within 3 years and 3 attempts from date of their engagement/appointment. In this regard, the State is directed to organize the TET annually. After successfully acquiring the minimum qualification and passing TET within prescribed time limit, the services of such appointees shall be, accordingly, regularized on completion of two years of service thereafter.
(d)The direction C above shall be applicable to the other similarly situated candidates who have already been appointed from the select panels under the ReT Scheme after 23.08.2010 i.e., the date of NCTE notification prescribing minimum qualifications and prior to the issuance of Closure Order, and do not possess minimum qualification including TET as per the notification of NCTE. However, those appointees shall acquire prescribed qualification within the time as specified in direction C.
(e)It is obligatory upon this Court to direct that once the candidates/appointees under the ReT Scheme have acquired the prescribed qualifications and qualified the TET as indicated above, the seniority of all such candidates/appointees shall be redrawn and determined by the competent authority of the State, maintaining their respective positions in the select panels uninfluenced by the date of appointment, joining or regularization. The inter se seniority shall also be determined accordingly.
(f)It is further directed that if the candidates/appointees including those already appointed and regularized who do not acquire/possess the requisite qualifications in terms of the NCTE notifications and fail to qualify the TET within the period prescribed hereinabove, the State is at liberty to dispense with their services as the mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India cannot be left at altar even while rendering complete justice in invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is further clarified that those candidates/appointees would not have any claim with respect to seniority or regularization as directed hereinabove.
(g)The directions issued hereinabove are in rem and shall apply mutatis mutandis to the candidates already appointed pursuant to 74 advertisements that are subject matter of present proceedings, though they are not party to the present appeals. In view thereof, this judgment shall be widely publicized, and all the candidates/appointees shall be duly informed of these directions so that they can take recourse for acquiring the minimum qualification as per NCTE Regulations and Notifications, if they have not already acquired the same.
(h)The directions contained in clauses (a) to (g) hereinabove shall apply to all the candidates who are litigating in any Court and such cases have been filed prior to the date of this judgement. It is further clarified that candidates who have not already filed cases in any Courts shall neither acquire any fresh cause of action by virtue of these directions nor be entitled to seek any further directions from any Court in that regard.
(i)At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that this judgment shall not be construed as reviving the ReT Scheme for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be interpreted so as to create or confer any right upon candidates who were not part of a prepared select panel or who failed to approach the Court timely. Moreover, these directions are being issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case invoking the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and it shall not be treated as precedent in any manner whatsoever.
(j)In view of the observations made in para 24 above, we believe that the State Governments shall apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the situation prevalent in the State and to take an appropriate decision with respect to the revision of the honorarium of such teachers as they deem fit.”
The effect of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, is not that every claim arising out of the ReT Scheme stands revived. The Supreme Court has itself confined its directions to the circumstances specified therein and has expressly clarified that the judgment does not revive the Scheme or create a fresh cause of action in favour of persons who had not approached the Court within time. At the same time, the judgment makes it clear that the closure of the Scheme, by itself, cannot retrospectively extinguish the claim of a candidate who was part of a prepared select panel and was already litigating before a Court in proceedings instituted prior to the judgment.
The applicant’s case stands on its own factual footing. She instituted the writ petition in the year 2012, much prior to the Closure Order dated 16.11.2018, and the challenge therein is directed specifically against the selection and engagement of private respondent No.5. The applicant asserts that she was more meritorious and was consequently entitled to selection in preference to respondent No.5. Thus, the controversy raised in the writ petition was not merely with respect to continuation of the ReT Scheme after its closure.
Whether the applicant was in fact more meritorious than private respondent No.5; whether the selection of respondent No.5 was made in accordance with the applicable criteria; whether, on the basis of the record and the law governing the selection, the applicant is entitled to any consequential relief; and whether the averments pleaded by the petitioner in the main petition and the prayer made thereunder can be acceded to, in the light of the riders imposed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the judgment supra, are questions which have not been adjudicated on merits.
It is also relevant that the present application does not seek adjudication of the applicant’s claim to appointment at this stage. The prayer is confined to recall of the order dated 04.02.2025 and restoration of the writ petition. The Court, therefore, is not required in the present proceedings to determine whether the applicant was actually more meritorious than respondent No.5 or whether she is ultimately entitled to appointment.
Having regard to the totality of the facts, it would be in the interest of justice that the applicant's challenge is considered on its merits rather than being foreclosed on the ground on which the writ petition came to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The order dated 04.02.2025 is recalled. SWP No. 2734/2012 is restored to its original number and shall be considered on its merits.
List SWP No. 2734/2012 on 12th October, 2026.
It is clarified that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the writ petition or on the applicant's entitlement to appointment, which shall be considered independently in accordance with law.