KAVITA DEVI vs STATE TH.EDUCATION DEPTT.AND ORS.

Sr.No. 71

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


SWP No. 2533/2016
IA No. 1/2016
CM No. 6850/2019
Reserved on: 18.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Uploaded on: 02.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full


Kavita Devi, age 32 years D/o Lt. Satpal
R/o Village Thangriot, Tehsil Suranderbani
District Rajouri.


…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate


vs
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to













Government, Education Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
2. Director School Education, Jammu.
3. Chief Education Officer, Rajouri.
4. Zonal Education Officer, Lower Hathal, Thangriot,
Sunderbani.
5. Secretary Project Director SSA, J&K at Jammu
6. Chief Information Commissioner, J&K at Jammu.
7. State Vigilance Organization, through Chief Vigilance
Commissioner, J&K at Jammu.
8. State Board of School Education, J&K through its
Secretary, Rehari Jammu.
9. Amit Kumar age, 32 years S/o Krishan Lal R/o Village
Thangriot, Tehsil Sunderbani District Rajouri
…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Assisting Counsel


Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE


JUDGMENT


PRAYER
1. The petitioner through the medium of instant petition has sought the
following reliefs:

2 SWP No. 2533/2016


a) Writ of Certiorari quashing the Order No. DSEJ/RET/4811-17 of
respondent no. 4 dated 29.06.2004 By virtue of which the private
respondent no. 9 was engaged as RET teacher in Government Middle
School, Thangriot Zone Lower Hathal, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri.
b) Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondents no 1 to 4 to
consider the petitioner against the post of RET middle school Thangriot
Zone Lower Hathal, Tehsil Sunderbani, District Rajouri.
c) Writ of Mandamus directing the official respondent no. 6 to supply
the information sought under RTI Act and to take appropriate penal
action under the Right to Information Act and the rules made there under
against all the Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities who
did not act in accordance with the law.
d) Writ of Mandamus Directing respondents no. 1 and 7 to hold
inquiry and take appropriate legal action against the respondent no. 2 to 5
into the whole actions of the said respondents with regard to their act of
criminal conspiracy by taking gratification from the private respondent
and managing illegal engagement order of the private respondent no. 9 as
RET teacher in GMS Thangriot zone Lower Hathal District Rajouri.
e) Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 8 to produce the
record in original with regards to the marks obtained and the marks
increased for 10+2 exams in year 2003 Annual and 2003 Bi-Annual of
respondent no. 9.

BRIEF FACTS
2. The facts in brief are t hat the petitioner passed her matriculation (10th)
examination in the year 2000 and Higher Secondary (12th) examination in
the year 2002 from J&K Board of School Education . The petitioner has
completed her Graduation in the year 2007 from University of Jammu and
post graduation in the year 2009 from HMB Garwal University,
Uttarakhand. The petitioner has also done B.Ed in the year 2011 from

3 SWP No. 2533/2016


University of Jammu and M.Ed in year 2014 from Maharishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak Haryana.
3. It is submitted that, in response to the advertisement notice issued by
respondent No. 2 vide Order No. DSEJ/RET/4811-17 dated 29.06.2004,
published in the local daily, inviting applications from eligible candidates
for various posts, including the posts of RET Teachers in Upper Primary
Middle School Thangriot, Zone Lower Hathal, Tehsil Sunderbani, District
Rajouri, the petitioner, being fully qualified and fulfilling all the requisite
eligibility criteria, applied for the said post before respondent No. 4 within
the prescribed time. Pursuant thereto, a panel for engagement of RET
Teachers was prepared, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3
against the three advertised posts, whereas the private respondent was
placed at Serial No. 4, in respect of Upper Primary Middle School
Thangriot, Zone Lower Hathal, Tehsil Sunderbani. Thereafter, respondent
No. 4 prepared the merit list dated 30.04.2005, wherein the petitioner was
again placed at Serial No. 3. The said merit list was finalized after a lapse
of more than ten months from the last date prescribed for submission of
applications, and, upon such finalization, the only formality remaining
was the issuance of the engagement order in favour of the petitioner.
4. It is alleged that respondents No. 3 and 4, in connivance with the private
respondent, instead of issuing the engagement order in favour of the
petitioner, entertained an application purportedly submitted by the private
respondent on 23.09.2004, notwithstanding the fact that the same was
submitted after the expiry of the prescribed period for submission of

4 SWP No. 2533/2016


applications. Respondent No. 3, vide endorsement thereon, directed
respondent No. 4 to consider the said application. It is further alleged that,
pursuant thereto, verification of the private respondent's marks was
obtained from the Joint Secretary (Certificates), respondent No. 5, vide
communication dated 18.05.2005, in response to respondent No. 4's letter
dated 02.05.2005. The verification reflected that the private respondent
had secured 292 marks in the Bi-annual Examination, 2003, without
disclosing the date of examination or result. It is contended that, if such
marks were available in 2003, there was no explanation as to why the
same were neither disclosed nor relied upon when applications were
invited in 2004. According to the petitioner, the subsequent production
and verification of the said marks were intended to facilitate the illegal
engagement of the private respondent .
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that, instead of issuing the
engagement order in her favour, respondents No. 2 to 4 engaged the
private respondent as RET Teacher vide order dated 03.08.2005. Despite
repeated oral and written representations, the grievance of the petitioner
was not considered. The petitioner thereafter sought information under the
RTI Act through applications dated 14.10.2013, 03.01.2014 and
17.05.2016, but was furnished incomplete and illegible information,
particularly with regard to the documents of the private respondent.
Respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 07.11.2015, also admitted that
incomplete information had been supplied. The petitioner, having failed to

5 SWP No. 2533/2016


obtain the requisite information, preferred an appeal before the competent
authority under the RTI Act, but no effective action was taken.
6. It is further the case of the petitioner that, being compelled to pursue the
matter from one authority to another, she preferred a second appeal before
the Chief Information Commissioner vide representation dated
22.09.2016, pursuant to the deficiency notice dated 11.01.2016. Despite
furnishing the documents sought by the concerned authority, the requisite
information was not supplied to the petitioner and no effective action was
taken. The petitioner also approached the State Vigilance Organization
vide representation dated 28.03.2016, with a copy to the State
Accountability Commission, but no action was taken on her complaint.
7. It is submitted that the advertisement notice was published on 29.06.2004,
prescribing 15 days' time for submission of applications, which expired on
14.07.2004. The petitioner contends that, after the expiry of the prescribed
period, no application or additional document could have been
entertained. The Village Panel was subsequently prepared and the Merit
List was finalized on 30.04.2005, wherein the petitioner was placed at
Serial No. 3, above the private respondent at Serial No. 4, against three
available posts. In these circumstances, the subsequent consideration of
the private respondent's purported application dated 23.09.2004, coupled
with the endorsement of respondent No. 3 dated 24.09.2004, as alleged by
the petitioner, raises a serious question regarding the legality and
genuineness of the process. If the said application and endorsement were
genuine and available at the relevant time, there is no explanation as to

6 SWP No. 2533/2016


why they remained unacted upon for several months, nor why the private
respondent did not pursue his claim before the competent authority at the
appropriate stage. The subsequent reliance upon the alleged marks of 292
obtained in the Bi-annual Examination, 2003, and their verification in
May 2005, as alleged by the petitioner, further casts serious doubt upon
the fairness of the selection process. The petitioner, being higher in merit
and placed at Serial No. 3 against the three available posts, was entitled to
consideration for engagement. The engagement of the private respondent,
therefore, is alleged to be the result of manipulation and an arbitrary and
fraudulent departure from the prescribed selection process and is liable to
be quashed .
LEGAL ANALYSIS
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Also
heard Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG for the official respondents.
9. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court
in case titled “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. vs Saba
Wani” , 2026 INSC 439 has passed a judgment in which the Hon’ble
Apex Court while dealing with the petition preferred by the Union
Territory of J&K, has been pleased to issue the following directions:
“25. In 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

7 SWP No. 2533/2016


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 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 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

8 SWP No. 2533/2016


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 to seniority ог regularization as directed
respect 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 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 judgment. 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 invoking the power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India and it shall not be treated as
precedent in any manner whatsoever.

9 SWP No. 2533/2016


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.”

10. Before adverting to the applicability of the aforesaid judgment to the
present case, it is necessary to notice the nature of the relief claimed by the
petitioner. The petitioner seeks quashing of the engagement of private
respondent No. 9 and, as a consequential relief, seeks consideration of her
own claim for engagement as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in Government
Middle School, Thangriot, Zone Lower Hathal, Tehsil Sunderbani, District
Rajouri.
11. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner were to succeed
in establishing any infirmity in the consideration of the private respondent,
the same, by itself, cannot result in a direction for her appointment at this
stage. The relief sought by the petitioner would necessarily require this Court
to reopen the selection process undertaken under the erstwhile ReT Scheme
and to unsettle the selection which stood concluded years ago. More
importantly, the petitioner does not form part of the prepared select panel in
respect whereof any subsisting right of engagement can be recognised in
terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani . Any direction at this stage for
her appointment would, therefore, have the effect of creating a fresh right of
appointment under a Scheme which has since been closed.

10 SWP No. 2533/2016


12. The benefit of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saba
Wani is confined to candidates who were part of the prepared select panels
and whose entitlement to engagement flowed from such panels. At the same
time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically clarified that the
judgment shall not be construed as reviving the ReT Scheme for any
purpose whatsoever or as creating or conferring any right upon candidates
who were not part of a prepared select panel.
13. In the present case, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the aforesaid
directions merely on the basis of her assertion that she was placed at Serial
No. 3 in an earlier village/merit panel. The relief claimed by her is not
founded upon an existing and operative right arising from a prepared select
panel, but would require this Court, at this stage, to revisit the selection
process, examine the legality of the engagement made in favour of private
respondent No. 9 and, thereafter, direct consideration of the petitioner's
engagement in his place. Such an exercise would clearly travel beyond the
limited protection extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saba Wani
and would, in effect, amount to reopening a concluded selection process
under the erstwhile ReT Scheme which is not permissible in the light of the
rider imposed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case mentioned supra with
particular reference to Clause (i) of para 25 of the operative part of the
judgment as the petitioner is admittedly not figuring in the select panel.
14. In view of the above, grant of such relief would have the effect of creating
a fresh right of appointment and reopening the engagement process under a

11 SWP No. 2533/2016


Scheme which stands closed, contrary to the express clarification issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saba Wani.
Conclusion:
15. Accordingly, in the light of the subsequent development in law and the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani, the instant petition has been
rendered infructuous and the relief of engagement sought by the petitioner
cannot be acceded thereto at this stage, as the same will tantamount to
reviving the RET Scheme which if be done will be in direct conflict with
the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
16. The writ petition, therefore, does not survive for consideration and is
accordingly dismissed .
17. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.



(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU

01.09.2026
Vijay


Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/N o


Vijay Kumar
2026.09.02 13:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document