Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir vs. Saba Wani

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 439
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 2721 OF 2024)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.05.02
14:13:04 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(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)
J U D G M E N T
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 –

13

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 –

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

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
1
question. 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.
2
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 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, ) , a person can become eligible for appointment
‘TET’
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.
in rem
(g) The directions issued hereinabove are 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