Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Saba Wani

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12210 OF 2023)

UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SABA WANI ...RESPONDENT

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24947 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24945 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25679 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24948 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24946 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2721 OF 2024) SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.02

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 14:13:04 IST Reason:

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 24944 OF 2023)

1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25680 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25681 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25682 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25683 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25678 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25684 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25685 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25686 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25688 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 28390 OF 2023)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2720 OF 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2123 OF 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 5221 OF 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 6890 OF 2024)

2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 8694 OF 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 20813 OF 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18678 OF 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. OF 2026) (@ DIARY NO. 21444 OF 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. OF 2026) (@ DIARY NO. 26922 OF 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. OF 2026) (@ DIARY NO. 21440 OF 2025)

AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. OF 2026) (@ DIARY NO. 21437 OF 2025)

JUDGMENT

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present batch of appeals involves a common question of

law, therefore, they are being disposed of by way of this common

3 judgement. Except for appeals arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Civil) Nos. 25683/2023, 25684/2023, 25685/2023,

25686/2023, 2720/2024 and 5221/2024, all other appeals have

been preferred assailing the common judgment dated 04.02.2023

passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at

Srinagar (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) in SWP No. 3801 of 2019 and

connected matters. As far as appeals arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Civil) Nos. 25683/2023, 25684/2023, 25685/2023,

25686/2023, 2720/2024 and 5221/2024 are concerned, they

have been preferred against the orders dated 06.02.2023 in SWP

No. 2467 of 2018, 27.02.2023 in WP (C) No. 393 of 2021,

10.03.2023 in WP (C) No. 944 of 2020, 12.05.2023 in WP (C) No.

819 of 2020, 06.02.2023 in WP (C) No. 3658 of 2019 and

06.02.2023 in SWP No. 108 of 2019, wherein the judgement

passed in SWP No. 3801 of 2019 has been relied upon by the

High Court while disposing of the respective petitions.

Accordingly, for the sake of brevity, any reference to the impugned

order hereinafter shall be understood as a reference to the

judgment passed in SWP No. 3801 of 2019, unless the context

otherwise requires.

4

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, various Writ Petitions were

filed before the High Court whereby it was prayed to quash

Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018

(hereinafter, ‘Closure Order’) by which the State Government

formally closed the Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme (hereinafter, ‘ReT’)

and also announced cancellation/withdrawal of all advertisement

notices issued for engagement of ReTs or panels prepared, where

no engagement orders had been issued. The said challenge was

primarily premised on the ground that placement of candidates

in select panel, that had not been acted upon, was being nullified

by the closure order taking away the rights vested consequent to

the placement of their names in selection panel. Since such

candidates were restricted from their engagement because of

closure order of ReTs and due to pending litigation.

5. The High Court, while upholding the constitutionality of the

Closure Order, carved out certain exceptions. The relevant

paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder for

ready reference –

“31. We have heard both the sides at some length on the impact of the Government order on the pending litigation and we cull out our conclusion as under:

5

(i) That the impugned Government order will not affect the select panels prepared by the respondents which have been acted upon and formal orders of engagement have been issued;

(ii) That the impugned Government Order will not override or effect the judgments passed or to be passed by this Court holding a candidate/candidates entitled to engagement in the selection process which was/is under challenge before the Court;

(iii) Where the select panels are approved and the aggrieved party has approached the Court before it could be acted upon, shall also be not affected by the impugned Government order, in that, but for litigation in the Court, the approved panel/panels could have been acted upon and formal letters of engagement in favour of the selected candidates issued prior to the issuance of the impugned Government order; and,

(iv) Notwithstanding issuance of the impugned Government order, the respondents shall abide by the judgments passed by any competent Court of law which have attained finality. However, the writ petitions involving adjudication of disputes in respect of tentative merit lists or tentative select panels shall be liable to be dismissed in view of the impugned Government order, in that, it would not be permissible for a Court of law to direct the respondents to finalize the tentative merit lists or tentative select panels and issue engagement orders in view of closure of the scheme and a clear stipulation contained in paragraph 2nd of the impugned Government order.

32. In view of the discussion made and the reasons given above, challenge to the constitutionality of the impugned Government Order fails and consequently, all the petitions are disposed of by providing that the impugned Government order shall be understood and made applicable in the manner explained hereinabove in the judgment.”

6. Assailing the afore-mentioned findings of the High Court,

respective appeals have been filed by the State

6 Government/Administration (hereinafter, ‘State’) as well as some

private parties who were seeking appointment under the ReT

scheme. The State has challenged the findings contained in

paragraph 31 of the impugned judgement, in particular, sub-

paragraph (ii) and (iii) and the candidates were aggrieved by the

findings insofar as the Closure Order has been upheld by the

impugned order.

7. At the outset, it is to be noted that ReT Scheme was

launched by the Education Department of then State of Jammu

and Kashmir vide Order No. 396 of Edu of 2000 dated

28.04.2000. This scheme was envisaged as a response to the

acute shortage of teaching staff at the elementary level,

particularly in underserved and remote areas. Under this

scheme, local individuals had to be engaged as teachers to bridge

infrastructural and human resource gaps, primarily in

elementary education. Its central objective was to ensure

accessible, accountable, and quality education by fostering a

direct linkage between the school and the community by

providing ‘constant interface and interaction with the community to

secure universal enrollment and to check the hindrance of drop-

outs’ especially in areas of Jammu and Kashmir where

7 educational facilities were scarce. Later on, vide G.O. No. 170-

Edu of 2003 dated 24.11.2003 it was notified that the procedure

for recruitment as prescribed in ReT scheme was to be followed

for filling up of posts created under Sarv Siksha Abhiyan. Vide

G.O. No. 635-Edu of 2010 it was further stipulated that regular

vacancies created in Socially and Educationally Backward areas

and in areas near the Line of Actual Control were to be filled as

per ReT scheme.

8. Nonetheless, vide G.O. No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated

16.11.2018, the Closure Order was issued by the Education

Department and the ReT scheme was formally closed. The said

G.O. is reproduced for ready reference –

“GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CIVIL SECRETARlAT, JAMMU

Subject: Formal closure of Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme and cancellation/withdrawal of all advertisement notices issues for engagement of ReTs or panels prepared where no engagement orders have been issues under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme.

Ref: State Administrative Council Decision No. 129/ 19/2018 dated 14.11.2018. Government Order No: 919-Edu of 2018 Dated: 16-11-2018

Sanction is hereby accorded that: -

8

i) Formal closure of the ReT Scheme and the ReT recruitment/engagement process notified vide Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.4.2000 along with subsequent modifications/amendments. However, the existing Rest already appointed under the scheme or on ReT pattern shall continue to be governed under the erstwhile scheme till their regularization or otherwise;

ii) All advertisement notices for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers or panels prepared where no engagement orders have been issues (sic) shall and shall always be deemed to have been cancelled/withdrawn as ab-initio;

iii) No fresh advertisement for recruitment/engagement under any ReT Scheme(s) shall henceforth be issued.

By order of Government of Jammu and Kashmir.”

The said Closure Order has been upheld by the High Court in the

impugned order, albeit, after reading it down as indicated in

preceding paragraphs. It is in this backdrop that the present

appeals have been preferred.

9. When this matter came for adjudication before this Court,

notice was issued vide order dated 09.06.2023 while staying the

operation of the impugned order and also with a direction that

appointments already affected shall not be disturbed till disposal.

After completing service of notice upon the Respondents, this

matter was listed on 01.04.2025 whereby this Court directed the

parties to complete pleadings and to file a compilation containing

all the relevant documents.

9

10. As noted in this Court's order dated 25.11.2025, during the

course of hearing, Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG appearing for the

State, contended that following the enactment of the Right of

Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

(hereinafter, ‘RTE Act’) and the promulgation of relevant

regulations, appointments under the ReT Scheme can no longer

survive. He argued that the qualifications prescribed under the

ReT Scheme fall short of the statutory stipulations mandated by

the RTE Act and the regulations framed thereunder, rendering

further appointments under the ReT scheme legally

impermissible. In light of these submissions, the State was

directed to furnish the specific information detailed in

paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the aforementioned order, which are

reproduced below for ready reference –

“4) In the said sequel of facts, it is required to be explained that at the time of introducing the ReT scheme in the year 2000, what were the Rules for recruitment of teachers in primary and middle schools were (sic) prevalent prescribing the qualifications, other than as prescribed in the ReT Scheme.

5) At the time of abolition of the said Scheme applying the mandate of Right to Education Act and regulations of NCTE, the State Government formulated the Rules/amended Rules/formulated some guidelines for appointment of the teachers introducing the qualification as prescribed by NCTE. It be also specified that applying those guidelines, the teachers who were being appointed under the ReT scheme shall now be recruited under those rules/ regulations/scheme.

10

6) All the facts be clarified by filing affidavit by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir within a period of four weeks. Private parties are also at liberty to bring documents by filing explaining all the aforesaid queries.”

11. Apropos the order, State filed affidavit dated 10.01.2026

whereby it was clarified that at the time of introduction of the

ReT Scheme, the recruitment of teachers in primary and middle

school was being governed by J&K Education Department

(Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 and, after closure

of the ReT Scheme, RTE Act and regulations framed by the

National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter, ‘NCTE’) came

into force in the territory of Jammu & Kashmir on 31.10.2019

and that final recruitment rules are yet to be finalized in terms of

applicable regulations.

12. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned senior

counsel for the candidates that several individuals have already

been appointed from the very select panels forming the subject

matter of the present litigation, therefore, it becomes imperative

to consider the claims of the candidates before this Court

through the lens of parity, equal treatment and to grant at par

benefits. In this view, to be able to adjudicate the dispute

comprehensively, we sought further clarifications from the State

11 vide order dated 13.01.2026, relevant portion of which is

reproduced as thus –

“1. We have heard Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General for some time. After hearing and on perusal of the Notification Policy dated 16.11.2018 in particular Clauses (ii) and

(iii) thereof and the directions as issued by the High Court, however, to analyze the issue in right earnest, it is necessary that in furtherance to a policy decision, it is to be clarified that :

(i) How many selections in furtherance to the advertisement which is under challenge before the High Court are governed by Clause (i) of the policy?

(ii) How many advertisements and the select panels which are under challenge are governed by Clause (ii)?

(iii) In reference to question No. (ii) above, it be explained that out of those select panels, how many persons have been appointed by the State Government implementing the said select list in part and how many still to be appointed to which the judgment may or may not be applicable in the facts of the case.

(iv) It be explained that what was the purpose behind notifying clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Policy dated 16.11.2018 as referred in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court and the grounds taken in this special leave petitions.

(v) While explaining the aforesaid, it be explained in the affidavit that at the time of issuance of the policy dated 16.11.2018, what was the stage of process of selection in furtherance to the individual advertisements.

2. All the said relevant documents are necessary. They be filed by way of additional affidavit of the competent officer not below the rank of the Secretary. The learned State counsel shall file the case wise details of the facts, pending selection list and the persons appointed for assistance of this Court on the next date of listing.”

13. In pursuance of the above-quoted order, the State filed the

affidavit dated 02.02.2026. Nonetheless, upon perusal, we were of

12 the opinion that the affidavit so filed did not answer the queries

of this Court sufficiently. Therefore, vide the order dated

03.02.2026, by way of last indulgence, we permitted the State to

file additional affidavit explaining all the queries as raised in

order dated 13.01.2026. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit

dated 23.02.2026 was filed by the State detailing all the

information as was sought by this Court.

14. With respect to the query no. (i) regarding the number of

appointments made under the advertisements that are subject

matter of present appeals, it was submitted that in total, 39,585

ReT teachers were appointed in between 2002 and 2018.

Moreover, it was stated that in respect of the advertisements that

are subject matter of the present batch of Appeals, 1538 persons

were appointed. It was also explained that select panels in which

an objection was raised and the litigation was pending in respect

of any of the selected candidates, no engagement could be made

till issuance of Closure Order, which were to be governed by

directions contained in the impugned judgement. Regarding

query no. (ii), following was stated in tabulated manner –

Total no. of Total no. of How many of Total no. of advertisements Select Panels these candidate

13 involved in formed in 74 advertisements who have to these 30 SLPs advertisements and select panels be appointed involved in these are governed by if direction 30 SLPs clause (ii) of the (ii) of Para 31 policy i.e., where of the no engagement impugned orders were issued judgement is prior to applied 16.11.2018

74 1679 783 Select Panels 783 are governed by Clause (ii) of the policy

In the above table, column no. 3 indicates 783 select panels that

have to be governed by clause (ii) of the Closure Order while

column 4 indicates 783 candidates have to be appointed as per

the impugned judgement. There appears to be some clerical

discrepancy. Accordingly, Column 3 has to be read as indicating

the number of candidates who found place in the select panels

and are liable to be governed by clause (ii) of the policy as well as

para 31 of the impugned judgment.

15. With respect to query no. (iii), it was stated that total 2349

posts were advertised in 74 advertisements which are involved in

the present Appeals and total 1679 candidates were in select

panels. Out of those, it was stated that 1538 candidates were

appointed. As far as reasons for selecting some of the candidates

and not selecting others, it was reiterated that panels where no

14 objection was raised with respect to selection of the candidate,

said panels were culminated by issuance of necessary

engagement orders and in cases where some dispute or litigation

was pending, the select panels could not be brought to their

logical ends before issuance of the Closure Order. It was also

stated that no appointment whatsoever has been made under the

ReT Scheme after the Closure Order.

16. As far as query no. (iv) is concerned, following reasons were

stated for notifying clause (ii) and (iii) of the Closure Order –

“I state that the information sought by this Hon’ble Court in point no. iv w.r.t to the purpose behind incorporating point no. (ii) and

(iii) of the policy i.e. withdrawal of all advertisements and panels ab initio, where no engagement orders were issued till 16.11.2028 and no fresh advertisement for engagement under any ReT scheme will be issued henceforth is that:

(i) pursuant to revocation of the Scheme all the posts advertised prior to 16.11.2018 which remained vacant have withdrawn as a natural corollary of the withdrawal of the scheme and hence no engagement could be made without posts and as such, incorporation of point no. (i) in Govt. Order dated 16.11.2018 was inevitable.

(ii) I state that the reason behind insertion of clause (iii).of the policy was that the Scheme for ReT was revoked and hence no post or vacancy of ReT existed in Jammu and Kashmir and such no further advertisement for recruitment/ engagement under the ReT Scheme(s) could have been issued.”

15

17. With regard for query no. (v), it was explained that with

respect to some of the advertisement no appointment was made

at all, while in others, appointments were made prior to the

issuance of the Closure Order where no dispute or litigation was

already pending. Said information is tabulated for brevity as

follows –

Category SLP (Civil) Nos.

No appointment made at all 12210 of 2023; 24947 of 2023;

24945 of 2023; 25689 of 2023;

24948 of 2023; 24946 of 2023;

2721 of 2024; 24944 of 2023;

25680 of 2023; 25681 of 2023;

25682 of 2023; 28390 of 2023;

25684 of 2023; 25686 of 2023;

2720 of 2024; 2123 of 2024; 5221 of 2024; 6890 of 2024; 20813 of 2023;

Diary No. 26934 of 2025; Diary No. 26922 of 2025; Diary No. 21444 of 2025; Diary No. 21440 of 2025 and Diary No. 2137 of 2025

Appointments made only prior to 25683 of 2023; 25678 of 2023; the issuance of the Closure Order 25685 of 2023; 25688 of 2023 and where no dispute or litigation was 8694 of 2024 already pending.

As far as stage of selection process at the time of issuance of

Closure Order with respect to the advertisements involved in each

appeal is concerned, information contained in the following table

was brought on record –

16 Stage of Selection Process SLP (Civil) Nos.

Tentative Selection List Issued 12210 of 2023; 2721 of 2024; 25680 of 2023; Diary No. 26934 of 2025; Diary No. 26922 of 2025 and Diary No. 21440 of 2025;

Master Panel prepared but not 24947 of 2023; 25679 of 2023; 24948 approved of 2023; 24946 of 2023; 28390 of 2023;

25684 of 2023; 2720 of 2024; 5221 of 2024; 20813 of 2023; Diary No. 21444 of 2025 and Diary No. 2137 of 2025

Empanelment Stage 24945 of 2023

Master Panel but no Tentative 24944 of 2023; 25681 of 2023; 25682 Selection list (Or, only Master of 2023; 25683 of 2023; 25678 of 2023;

Panel stage) 25685 of 2023; 25686 of 2023; 25688 of 2023; 2123 of 2024; 6890 of 2024;

8694 of 2024 and 26477 of 2024

Further, various stages of the selection process under the ReT

Scheme were also explained, which are: (i) Identification of posts;

(ii) Advertisement; (iii) Receiving applications; (iv) Scrutiny of

applications; (v) Empanelment of eligible candidates; (vi)

Preparation of master panel for issuance of tentative selection list;

(vii) Publication of tentative selection list and subsequent

approval by Directorate; and (viii) Issuance of engagement orders.

18. Upon perusal of the additional affidavit dated 23.02.2026,

as explained hereinabove, 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

17 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. It is a well-

settled proposition of law, endorsed repeatedly by this Court, that

any classification made by the State must satisfy the twin-test -

first, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from others left out of the group; second, that

such differentia must have a rational nexus with the object

sought to be achieved by the legislation or executive action in

question.1 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

1 State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 (para 85); Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (para 187, 248 & 408)

18 the date of the Closure Order, who have been denied engagement

orders, bears no rational nexus whatsoever with the said object.

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.

19. Notwithstanding the view as expressed above, we are also of

the opinion that after introduction of the RTE Act, minimum

qualifications as prescribed by the NCTE from time to time in

pursuance to Section 23 of the RTE Act has to be conformed to in

matter of appointment of new teachers as well as those who have

already been appointed. The order dated 24.02.2026 is germane

in this regard, therefore, reproduced as thus –

“1) Having heard learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the parties at length and on perusal of our order dated 13.01.2026 as well as the additional affidavit filed by the State Government in pursuance thereto, we are of the opinion that the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in terms of Section 23 of the Right to Education Act, 2009 may be treated to be the minimum qualification for the purpose of accommodation of the private respondents/petitioners (as the case may be) as new entrants and the persons who have already been appointed without such mandatory qualifications and yet not regularized must obtain the same for the purpose of regularization/absorption and further promotion.

2) It is also apparent from the additional affidavit filed by the State Government that the recruitments as per the Rehbar-e- Taleem (ReT) Scheme, 2000 which are under challenge before us range from 2008 to 2015 and in the said process master panels

19 have been prepared and tentative selection lists have been issued which have not been approved or finalized. The order of closure/withdrawal of the ReT scheme is subsequent i.e. on 16.11.2018.

3) In such a factual backdrop, a harmonized approach ought to be adopted. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel representing the State shall submit a proposal after taking suggestions from the private parties who succeeded before the High Court and place a tentative proposal for consideration before this Court on or before 16th March, 2026.

4) List the cases for further orders on 18.03.2026.

5) The matters will taken up on priority on the said date.” (emphasis supplied)

20. This view was necessitated especially in light of a recent

judgement of this Court in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.2 whereby this Court, after

analyzing the statutory framework of the RTE Act and extant

regulations, was of the view that only upon possessing the

minimum qualification as prescribed by the NCTE under Section

23 of RTE Act, that includes clearing the Teachers’ Eligibility Test

(hereinafter, ‘TET’), a person can become eligible for appointment

as a teacher. Moreover, this Court was also of the view that in

case in-service teachers are not possessing such minimum

qualification, as a pre-condition for future promotional avenues,

an opportunity may be granted to them to attain such minimum 2 2025 INSC 1063

20 qualification in a time-bound manner. Relevant paragraphs of the

said decision is reproduced as thus –

“166. In exercise of its authority under Section 23(1), the NCTE issued a Notification dated 23rd August, 2010, later amended by Notification dated 29th July, 2011, laying down that passing the TET is a mandatory condition for appointment of teachers in classes I to VIII in schools covered by Section 2(n) of the RTE Act. The notifications clarify that the TET must be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by the NCTE. The legal position emerging therefrom is clear: the TET is not a mere procedural requirement but forms an essential part of the minimum qualification criteria.

167. Importantly, the first and second provisos to Section 23(2) of the RTE Act carve out a transitional obligation for in-service teachers who did not possess the minimum qualifications at the time of commencement of the RTE Act. They were required to acquire such qualifications including passing the TET within a prescribed time frame. The second proviso introduced by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 201780 extended this compliance period by a period of four years from the date of commencement of the 2017 Amendment Act, which was deemed to have come into force on 1st April, 2015, i.e., till 2019 and not 2021 if four years were calculated from the date of the notification (i.e., 9th August, 2017). The express legislative intent was to bring all in-service teachers within the ambit of uniform quality standards.

168. NCTE’s notification also reinforces this requirement by stating that teachers working in unaided private schools, or those already in position as of 31st March, 2015, must qualify the TET within the stipulated period. The language of both the RTE Act and the notification leaves no room for ambiguity that even those teachers appointed prior to the RTE Act, if not qualified, must meet the TET requirement within the grace period granted. Only those appointed prior to 3rd September, 2001 in accordance with applicable recruitment rules, or those covered by specific exceptions (e.g., Special BTC or D.Ed. courses), were exempted.

21

169. Thus, read holistically, Section 23 of the RTE Act and the NCTE notifications together establish the TET as a compulsory qualifying criterion for all teachers appointed on or after 23rd August, 2010, and as a time-bound compliance obligation for those appointed earlier without the requisite qualifications. The sole object is to ensure uniform teaching standards across institutions imparting elementary education. Viewed in this light, the TET is not only a mandatory eligibility requirement but it is a constitutional necessity flowing from the right to quality education under Article 21A.

170. As a logical corollary to the above, it is axiomatic that those in-service teachers who aspire for promotion, irrespective of the length of their service, have to qualify the TET in order to be eligible to have their candidature considered for promotion.” (emphasis supplied)

21. Consequently, pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2026, on

the next date of hearing i.e., 20.04.2026, learned ASG submitted

a proposal across the board to us, which is reproduced as thus –

“1. Out of the cases pending before this Hon’ble Court, in cases where the Select Panels are approved but the final appointment order is yet to be issued, the said CASES WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY CLOSURE OF THE ReT SCHEME and persons will, subject to the outcome of any pending litigation and the rights/eligibility determined thereunder, be appointed within a period of 3 months. In cases where there is no litigation, similarly placed persons will be appointed within a period of 3 months.

2. The cases falling under situation 1 above which are the subject matter of litigation before any judicial forum, will be extended the same benefit as above, however, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the litigation and the rights/eligibility determined thereunder.

3. The persons appointed at this stage in terms of 1 and 2, may be appointed as ReT from the date of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in relaxation of scheme/rules subject however

22 to such persons acquiring the minimum qualification prescribed under the RTE Act including clearing Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), within 2 years from the date of such appointment and within 2 attempts.

[Please see:

a) Section 23 of the RTE Act,

b) NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 & 29.07.2011 under Section 23(1)

c) Paras 166-169, 197-201, 204, 206, 214, 217-218 of the Judgement of this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 1385/2025 titled Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. dated 01.09.2025]

4. UPON CLEARING TET, the concerned candidates will be confirmed in their respective posts. Seniority and other consequential benefits will be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from date of such confirmation of such candidates. (Actually, in terms of the ReT scheme the concerned candidates would be regularized after 5 years, however, in terms of the present proposal, the regularization benefit will be given upon clearing TET within a period of 2 years.)

5. Persons who are in service, appointed under the scheme on or after 23.08.2010 i.e., the date of the NCTE’s Notification whereby clearing TET has been prescribed as the minimum eligibility criteria for Teachers should clear the TET within a period of 2 years and within 2 attempts. The confirmation, promotion and continuation of all persons appointed as teachers under the scheme shall be subject to such persons clearing the TET within the period stipulated above and satisfying other conditions specified above.

6. In case, persons to be appointed as well as those already in service, fail to clear the mandatory TET within 2 attempts/2 years (for persons appointed – 2 years from the date of appointment and for persons in service – 2 years from date this proposal comes into force), their appointment automatically stands terminated. Upon such termination, the post automatically gets extinguished which means the post would be co-terminus with the termination of candidate.

23

7. The Hon’ble Court is requested not to allow any impleadment or intervention application in the instant matter, at this culminating stage of the case, in order to maintain fairness and defeat any mischievous attempt to dislodge the finality of the case. However, any applicant if eligibly, may approach the competent authority/court of competent jurisdiction, subject to fulfilment of limitation, to justify his/her claim.”

22. In the said context, the counsels representing the other side

i.e., the Candidates, also made certain suggestions which are (a)

the term ‘approved’ used in paragraph 1 of the proposal be read

as ‘prepared’ to avoid any further litigation; (b) since the TET

exam is not being conducted regularly by the State every year, ‘2

years – 2 attempts’ condition as contained in paragraph 3 of the

proposal be modified, taking a liberal approach; (c) seniority of all

such candidates who subsequently attain the minimum

qualification may be reckoned from the date of preparation of

respective panels instead of date of appointment as contained in

paragraph 4 of the proposal.

23. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and

upon perusal of the proposal as submitted by the learned ASG as

well as suggestions of the learned Senior Counsels representing

the Candidates, 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

24 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. 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.

24. It is however suffice to mention that if the Teacher

appointed, though under the scheme dispensing education, they

ought to be given due remuneration. However, during the course

of arguments, it was pointed out that the remuneration presently

offered i.e., Rs. 3,000/- is too less, particularly in these days

when the minimum wages are higher than this. It is hoped and

trusted that the State Government shall realize the aforesaid

25 situation, and for dispensation of quality education, they shall

take a decision on their discretion for enhancing the honorarium.

25. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to issue

following directions –

(a) 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. 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

26 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

27 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 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

28 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 Court 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

29 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 Government 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.

26. Consequent to the above directions, the impugned judgment

of the High Court stands modified to the extent indicated in

paragraph 25 hereinabove. All pending applications, including

applications for impleadment and intervention, shall stand

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

……….…………….…………J. (J.K. MAHESHWARI)

……….…………….…………J. (ATUL S. CHANDURKAR) New Delhi;

April 30, 2026.

30