Candidates in prepared ReT select panels who litigated timely must be considered under the Saba Wani directions.

Pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. DIP/J-8811/2014 dated 10.02.2014, applications were invited for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Teachers, including three posts at UPS Kudhal, Assar, District Doda.

The petitioner applied under the Social Science stream. The original application deadline of 25.02.2014 was extended to 03.03.2014 due to adverse weather conditions.

The petitioner was initially placed in the tentative panel and subsequently figured at Serial No. 2 in the final panel for the relevant stream.

Certain candidates, including private respondents 5 and 6, were excluded for not producing their B.Ed. marks cards by the cut-off date, although they claimed that their B.Ed. results had been declared before that date and that authenticated result sheets had been submitted.

The petitioner and other selected candidates earlier filed SWP No. 1451/2014, which was disposed of on 06.06.2014 with a direction to finalize the panels within two months.

During this process, the petitioner challenged the clarification dated 28.05.2014 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Doda, directing fresh empanelment by considering candidates who had not produced their B.Ed. marks cards by the cut-off date.

On 28.11.2014, this Court directed that the clarification order should not be acted upon pending further orders.

During the pendency of the petition, the Supreme Court decided Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Saba Wani, 2026 INSC 439, protecting candidates placed in select panels who had litigated their claims before the judgment.

Whether the petitioner, having figured in the final select panel and having pursued his claim before the Court prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Saba Wani, was entitled to consideration under the directions issued in that judgment.

Whether the impugned clarification dated 28.05.2014, directing fresh empanelment and consideration of candidates who had not produced their B.Ed. marks cards by the prescribed cut-off date, could be acted upon.

Whether the petitioner had an enforceable right to appointment, or only a right to consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.

The Court applied the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani, 2026 INSC 439, particularly paragraph 25(a), (b), (h) and (i), under which the closure of the ReT Scheme could not retrospectively impair the rights of candidates placed in select panels; such candidates were to be considered for engagement or appointment having regard to available vacancies, provided they had litigated their claims before the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The directions were issued in exercise of the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution and were stated not to revive the ReT Scheme or create rights in favour of candidates who were not part of a prepared select panel or who had not litigated their claims in time.

The Court also applied the principle that inclusion in a select panel does not by itself create an indefeasible right to appointment, but may confer a right to fair and lawful consideration.

The interim order dated 28.11.2014 restraining action on the clarification dated 28.05.2014 remained relevant to the treatment of the rival claims.

The Court found that the petitioner had figured in the final select panel prepared by the competent authority and had initiated legal proceedings concerning his claim before the Supreme Court’s judgment in Saba Wani.

He therefore fell within the class of candidates protected by the Supreme Court’s directions, which specifically covered litigating candidates whose names appeared in select panels.

The Court held that the petitioner’s case required consideration in accordance with those directions, while clarifying that such consideration did not amount to recognition of an independent or vested right to appointment.

Although private respondents 5 and 6 claimed higher merit and contended that their B.Ed. qualifications had been acquired before the cut-off date, the Court did not finally determine their entitlement under the impugned clarification.

Instead, it directed consideration of the petitioner under the binding framework laid down in Saba Wani, with the existing dispute regarding the clarification remaining governed by the record and prior interim order.

The official respondents were directed to accord consideration to the petitioner’s case strictly in terms of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani, 2026 INSC 439, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, writ petition and annexures.

The decision resulting from such consideration was directed to be communicated to the petitioner by registered post.

The Court expressly clarified that the direction conferred only a right to consideration under Saba Wani and did not independently guarantee appointment.