Supreme Court Allows Appointment Of ReT Candidates In J&K Subject To Clearing TET In Three Years

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.

Background

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.

The core issue before the Court was whether candidates whose names figured in approved select panels, but who were not appointed due to court stays or pending litigation, could be denied engagement following the closure of the scheme.

Rejecting the State's position, the Court held that such candidates could not be penalised for circumstances beyond their control. It emphasized that the pendency of litigation bears no rational connection to the objective of the closure order, which was aimed at eliminating irregularities such as forged qualifications.

Terming the State's classification as arbitrary, the Court ruled that the Closure Order violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it created an irrational classification between similarly situated candidates on the select panel, discriminating against those merely because litigation was pending against them.

“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.”, the court observed.

Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court crafted a comprehensive relief framework where the State must issue engagement orders to all eligible candidates within 8 weeks, and the appointees must clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within 3 years and a maximum of 3 attempts.

Moreover, the State was directed to conduct TET every year to facilitate compliance. Thereupon, if the candidate succeeds in TET, then their seniority will be based on original panel position, not date of appointment.

The Court clarified that candidates who fail to obtain the required qualifications within the stipulated period may have their services terminated, emphasising that the constitutional mandate of providing quality education under Article 21A cannot be compromised.

The Court stated that its directions will apply to all similarly situated candidates covered by the relevant advertisements, even if they were not parties to the litigation. However, it made it clear that the judgment should not be interpreted as reviving the ReT Scheme or creating rights for individuals who were not part of a prepared select panel or who failed to approach the Court in time.

“…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.”, the Court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the plea was disposed of.

Cause Title: UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. VERSUS SABA WANI

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 450

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For 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, dv. M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR Mr. Aseem Kumar Katoch, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR

For 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. 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 Mr. Aseem Kumar Katoch, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR