Candidates outside prepared ReT select panels cannot claim appointment by reopening concluded selections.

The petitioner claimed that, pursuant to an advertisement dated 29 June 2004 for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) teachers at Government Middle School, Thangriot, she applied within time and was placed at Serial No. 3 in the village/merit panel, while private respondent No. 9 was placed at Serial No. 4. Since three posts were advertised, she asserted that she was entitled to engagement. A merit list dated 30 April 2005 allegedly placed her above the private respondent.

The petitioner alleged that the private respondent’s application dated 23 September 2004 was submitted after expiry of the prescribed period and was subsequently entertained by the authorities. She further challenged the later verification of the private respondent’s 292 marks in the 2003 Bi-annual Examination and alleged manipulation and collusion in his engagement as an RET teacher on 3 August 2005.

The petitioner sought quashing of the private respondent’s engagement, consideration of her own candidature, disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, vigilance inquiry, and production of the private respondent’s examination record.

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

Whether the petitioner could seek quashing of the private respondent’s engagement and consequential consideration for appointment after the selection process under the RET Scheme had concluded several years earlier.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the directions issued in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Saba Wani, despite the Court finding that she was not part of a prepared and operative select panel.

Whether granting the petitioner’s requested relief would impermissibly revive or reopen the closed RET Scheme.

The Court applied the directions in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. v. Saba Wani, 2026 INSC 439, particularly paragraph 25(a)–(i). Under those directions, candidates who were part of prepared select panels could receive engagement orders against available vacancies, subject to acquiring the prescribed NCTE qualifications and qualifying the TET within the stipulated period; however, the directions did not revive the RET Scheme or create rights for candidates who were not part of a prepared select panel.

The Supreme Court further clarified that the directions were issued in the peculiar circumstances of that case and could not be treated as reviving the Scheme or conferring a fresh right of appointment.

The Court held that even if the petitioner established irregularity in the consideration or engagement of the private respondent, that circumstance would not automatically entitle her to appointment at this stage. Her claim required the Court to reopen a selection process concluded years earlier and to create a fresh right of appointment under a Scheme that had been closed.

The Court distinguished the protection granted in Saba Wani, observing that it applied only to candidates whose entitlement flowed from a prepared and operative select panel. The petitioner’s assertion that she had been placed at Serial No. 3 in an earlier village or merit panel was insufficient because she was not found to be a candidate forming part of the prepared select panel contemplated in Saba Wani.

Consequently, directing her engagement in place of the private respondent would exceed the limited protection granted by the Supreme Court and would effectively revive the RET Scheme, contrary to paragraph 25(i) of Saba Wani.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as having been rendered infructuous; all pending applications were disposed of and any interim directions were vacated.