The Supreme Court has provided a conditional pathway for the appointment of candidates previously selected under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir. This decision hinges on the candidates’ ability to meet specific qualifications and pass the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within a defined timeframe.
The ruling stipulates that these candidates must acquire the necessary minimum qualifications and successfully clear the TET within three years and a maximum of three attempts. The court’s decision emphasizes that the closure of the ReT scheme should not retroactively deny appointments to those who meet these conditions.
As per information available with TahirRihat.com, a bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar directed the Jammu and Kashmir Administration to issue engagement orders to eligible candidates, provided they comply with the statutory qualification norms outlined in the judgment. This directive aims to balance the rights of the candidates with the need to maintain teaching standards.
To facilitate compliance with the court’s order, the Jammu and Kashmir Administration has been instructed to conduct the TET annually. The court clarified that a candidate’s seniority, upon successfully passing the TET, will be determined by their original position on the panel, not by their date of appointment. This provision is intended to ensure fairness among the candidates affected by the scheme’s closure.
The Supreme Court’s verdict, delivered on April 30, also addresses the regularization of services for those who meet the specified criteria. Once appointees successfully acquire the minimum qualifications and pass the TET within the prescribed time limit, their services will be regularized after completing two years of service, according to the court’s order.
However, the ruling also acknowledges the state’s right to take action against candidates who fail to meet the required qualifications within the stipulated period. The bench stated that the state is at liberty to dispense with the services of those who do not meet the standards, emphasizing the importance of upholding Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to education.
The Supreme Court has clarified that its directions extend to all similarly situated candidates covered by the 74 advertisements that formed the basis of the proceedings, even if they were not directly involved in the litigation. This broad application of the ruling seeks to provide equitable relief to all eligible candidates affected by the ReT scheme’s closure.
The court also cautioned against interpreting the judgment as a revival of the ReT Scheme or as creating new rights for individuals not included in a prepared select panel, or those who did not approach the court in a timely manner. The bench emphasized that the judgment should not be treated as a precedent in any future cases.
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking to balance the equities between the candidates and the statutory requirements for maintaining minimum teaching standards under the Right to Education Act, 2009. This reflects the court’s aim to address the specific circumstances of the case while upholding broader educational standards.
The ReT Scheme, introduced in 2000, was designed to address teacher shortages in remote areas by engaging local individuals to provide elementary education. The scheme was formally closed on November 16, 2018, and the government cancelled advertisements and select panels where engagement orders had not yet been issued. This closure led to legal challenges from candidates who argued that their placement in select panels created a vested right to appointment.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court previously upheld the closure of the ReT scheme, with limited exceptions. Both the Jammu and Kashmir Administration and affected candidates subsequently challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court, leading to the current judgment.
Justice Maheshwari, writing for the bench, rejected the Jammu and Kashmir Administration’s contention that candidates could be penalized due to circumstances beyond their control. The court held that candidates should not be denied appointment solely because litigation was pending at the time of the scheme’s closure (Outlet-Name reported that Justice Maheshwari rejected the Jammu and Kashmir Administration’s contention and held that such candidates could not be penalized for circumstances beyond their control)
The court found that the pendency of litigation was an extraneous circumstance and could not be used as a basis for classification. Justice Maheshwari described the State’s classification as arbitrary and held that the closure order violated Article 14 of the Constitution, creating an irrational distinction between similarly situated candidates on the select panel.
Modifying the High Court’s directions, the Supreme Court stated that the State Government should consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case and the situation in the State, and take appropriate decisions regarding the revision of honorariums for the teachers as deemed fit. This allows for flexibility in addressing the financial aspects of the appointments.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.
Leave a Reply