Irregularity In Selection List Can't Confer Fresh Appointment To Unselected Candidate Under Closed Scheme: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a woman's petition alleging that the education authorities illegally appointed a lower-ranked candidate as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher after accepting his belated application, holding that any irregularity in his selection would not, by itself, confer upon her a right to appointment under the closed Scheme.
The Court made these observations after finding that she was not included in a prepared select panel protected under the Supreme Court's ruling in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Saba Wani (2026).
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of the other candidate's engagement, consideration of the petitioner for appointment as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher, disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act and an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the selection process.
A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed: “Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner were to succeed in establishing any infirmity in the consideration of the private respondent, the same, by itself, cannot result in a direction for her appointment at this stage. The relief sought by the petitioner would necessarily require this Court to reopen the selection process undertaken under the erstwhile ReT Scheme and to unsettle the selection which stood concluded years ago. More importantly, the petitioner does not form part of the prepared select panel in respect whereof any subsisting right of engagement can be recognised in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani. Any direction at this stage for her appointment would, therefore, have the effect of creating a fresh right of appointment under a Scheme which has since been closed.”
The dispute arose from an advertisement inviting applications for three Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher posts at a government middle school in Rajouri. The petitioner claimed that she applied within the prescribed period and was placed third in the village panel and merit list, while the subsequently selected candidate was ranked fourth.
She alleged that the education authorities later entertained an application submitted by the other candidate after the prescribed deadline. According to her, the authorities subsequently relied upon 292 marks allegedly obtained by him in an earlier biannual examination, though those marks had not been disclosed when applications were invited.
The petitioner claimed that the authorities appointed the other candidate in 2005 despite her higher merit position. After her representations remained unsuccessful, she sought records under the Right to Information Act and also approached the vigilance authorities.
During the petition's pendency, the Supreme Court delivered Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Saba Wani (2026), concerning the rights of candidates included in Rehbar-e-Taleem select panels before the Scheme was closed.
The High Court noted that Saba Wani (2026) protected candidates whose names had already been included in prepared select panels from the retrospective effect of the order closing the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme.
The Supreme Court had held: “The Closure Order of ReT Scheme dated 16.11.2018 for cancellation/withdrawal shall not retrospectively impair the right of the candidates found placed in the select panel.”
However, the Supreme Court had also clarified that its directions would not revive the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme or create rights in favour of candidates who were not part of a prepared select panel. The benefit was extended to candidates already litigating before courts, while those who had not instituted proceedings acquired no fresh cause of action.
Applying that limitation, the High Court observed: “The benefit of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saba Wani is confined to candidates who were part of the prepared select panels and whose entitlement to engagement flowed from such panels.”
The petitioner admittedly did not figure in a prepared select panel of the nature protected by the Supreme Court. The directions in Saba Wani consequently did not enure to her benefit.
The Court distinguished between enforcing a subsisting entitlement arising from a prepared select panel and creating a fresh appointment right by reopening an earlier selection process.
It observed: “The relief claimed by her is not founded upon an existing and operative right arising from a prepared select panel, but would require this Court, at this stage, to revisit the selection process, examine the legality of the engagement made in favour of private respondent No. 9 and, thereafter, direct consideration of the petitioner's engagement in his place.”
In the absence of an existing right flowing from a prepared select panel, the Court held that the petitioner's claim was effectively a fresh claim for appointment under the discontinued Scheme.
The Court found that the selection had concluded years earlier and the selected candidate had already been engaged. Granting the petitioner's relief would require the entire process to be reopened and the earlier appointment unsettled.
The Bench held: “Accordingly, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgment in Saba Wani, nor can the said judgment be construed as enabling this Court to reopen or revive a concluded selection process under the erstwhile ReT Scheme.”
Such relief would directly conflict with the Supreme Court's clarification that Saba Wani did not revive the Scheme or create fresh appointment rights.
The High Court held that the petition did not survive for consideration after the Supreme Court's ruling in Saba Wani (2026). It dismissed the writ petition, disposed of all pending applications and vacated any subsisting interim directions.
Case Title: Kavita Devi v. State of J&K and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Ashok Sharma
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma; Assisting Counsel Saliqa Sheikh