Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Protect Merit-Holders Affected By Closure Of Rehbar-E-Taleem Scheme In J&K: Mandates TET/NCTE
The Bench held the State may discontinue recruitment schemes but cannot create arbitrary classifications between candidates solely based on pending litigation.
The Supreme Court has modified a Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court judgment concerning the closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme, holding that the formal closure of the scheme through a closure order dated November 16, 2018 cannot retrospectively impair the rights of candidates already placed in select panels, provided they meet the statutory educational standards.
The Bench said that while the State has the authority to discontinue recruitment schemes, it cannot create an arbitrary classification between candidates based solely on the pendency of litigation. Furthermore, the Bench noted that under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), possessing minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), including the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), is a non-negotiable prerequisite for any teaching appointment.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed, “…we are of the opinion that the above-mentioned proposal seeks to accommodate merit-holders who were not engaged due to stay orders or pending litigation on the date of the Closure Order, provided that they subsequently meet the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE pursuant to Section 23 of the RTE Act. This pragmatic approach adopted by the State is appreciable, particularly given its obligation to act with utmost fairness in matters of appointment…”.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik appeared for the respondent.
The Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme was launched in April 28, 2000 to address teaching shortages in remote areas of Jammu and Kashmir. However, on November 16, 2018, the State issued Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018, formally closing the scheme and cancelling all pending advertisement notices and select panels where engagement orders had not been issued. This led to a wave of litigation by candidates who were in various stages of the selection process but were denied appointments due to the "Closure Order".
The High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Closure Order but carved out exceptions for cases where judgments had already been passed or where litigation had prevented the issuance of formal letters.
Both the State and various private candidates appealed to the Supreme Court, whereupon the Court stayed the High Court's order in 2023 and sought detailed data from the State regarding the number of affected candidates and their compliance with NCTE standards.
Therefore, now the Court observed that denying appointments to candidates in select panels merely because they were involved in pending litigation at the time of the Closure Order was "extraneous" and failed the twin-test of reasonable classification under Article 14.
However, the Court balanced this by ruling that the RTE Act’s mandate is supreme, while relying on Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2025 INSC 1063, the Bench held that the TET is a constitutional necessity for quality education. The Court found that a "pragmatic approach" was required to accommodate merit-holders while ensuring they attain the mandatory qualifications within a strict timeframe.
“…we are of the view that that the sole ground for non-issuance of engagement orders to the candidates before this Court is that certain litigation was pending with respect to those candidates as on the date of issuance of the Closure Order. This classification, prima facie, fails when tested on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India…”, the Bench noted.
“…As such, in order to balance the equities and to render complete justice in the present batch of Appeals, we are of the view that this is a fit case to invoke our plenary powers enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It is so because the result of present batch of Appeals would not only determine the fate of the Candidates who are before us, but it shall also entail consequences vis-a-vis realization of the Constitutional guarantee of right to education, which includes within its ambit the right to quality education, under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India”, the Bench noted.
Invoking Article 142, the Court directed the State to appoint selected candidates within eight weeks, require them to clear TET and qualifications within three years, redraw seniority accordingly, and review the ₹3,000 honorarium.
Cause Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. v. Saba Wani and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 439)
Appearances:
Appellants: Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR, Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv., Shoeb Alam, M.R. Shamshad, Zargham Ahmed, Naghma Imtiaz, Saif Naseem, Jyoti Singh, Amna Darakhshan, Anshu Kapoor, Virender Khitoliya, Aseem Kumar Katoch, Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR, S.P. Singh, Advocates.
Respondents: Sanjana Saddy, AOR, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Vardhman Kaushik, AOR, Nishant Gautam, Manoj Joshi, Dhruv Joshi, Shikha John, Anand Singh, Arindam Sarin, P. S. Vijayadharni, Sanjeev Saxena, Priya Nair, Elaisha Asher, Neeraj Khapra, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowira, Kaninika Majumder, Akshay Singh, Anita Malick, Manu Shanker Mishra, AOR, Anirudh Ray, Arpita Mishra, Aseem Kumar Katoch, Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR, S. P. Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, AOR, Siddharth Jain, AOR, Advocates.