Candidates excluded from the prepared select panel cannot claim appointment under the closed ReT Scheme.

The petitioners applied pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 29972-78 dated 08.02.2014 for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Teachers at UPS Kudhal, Education Zone Assar.

They claimed that their B.Ed. results had been declared before the extended cut-off date of 03.03.2014, although their marks cards were allegedly unavailable by that date.

Their names were included in a tentative panel but marked “rejected” and were not included in the final select panel.

The Chief Education Officer directed fresh empanelment after considering candidates whose B.Ed. results had been declared before the cut-off date, but the direction was allegedly not implemented.

During the pendency of related proceedings, the Government issued Orders dated 24.05.2016 and 29.11.2016 providing for a screening test for certain RET candidates and persons figuring in fresh panels.

The petitioners challenged those orders insofar as they applied to their selection process, and sought consideration of their candidature over private respondents 5 and 6.

During the writ proceedings, the Supreme Court decided Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Saba Wani, 2026 INSC 439, concerning candidates under the erstwhile ReT Scheme.

Whether the petitioners could challenge the retrospective application of the screening-test requirement to a selection process initiated before the impugned Government Orders

Whether the petitioners, not being included in the prepared select panel, could seek reconsideration of their candidature and appointment under the erstwhile ReT Scheme

Whether granting the relief sought would impermissibly reopen the selection process or revive the closed ReT Scheme in light of Saba Wani

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s directions in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani, 2026 INSC 439, which held that closure of the ReT Scheme could not retrospectively impair the rights of candidates already placed in prepared select panels; such candidates were to be issued engagement orders against available vacancies, subject to acquiring the prescribed NCTE qualifications and qualifying TET within three years and three attempts.

However, the Supreme Court expressly clarified that its directions did not revive the ReT Scheme or create rights in favour of candidates who were not part of a prepared select panel or who had approached the Court belatedly.

The Court further applied the principle that an interim order preserves the position during litigation but does not confer a substantive or vested right to appointment.

The Court held that deciding the petitioners’ claims would require examination of the competing qualifications and eligibility of the private respondents, reopening the empanelment exercise, and potentially creating a fresh right of appointment under a scheme that had already been closed.

Since the petitioners admittedly did not figure in the prepared select panel, they were outside the class protected by the directions in Saba Wani.

Even if the petitioners established that the screening-test requirement was introduced after commencement of the selection process, the Court could not grant relief that would disturb the select panel or revive the erstwhile ReT Scheme.

The interim protection granted during the proceedings did not create any enforceable appointment right.

The Court declined to quash Government Orders dated 24.05.2016 and 29.11.2016 or direct reconsideration and appointment of the petitioners, holding that such relief would conflict with Saba Wani and amount to reopening or reviving the closed ReT Scheme.

All connected applications were also dismissed, and any interim direction was vacated.