J&K CAT Keeps Regularised ReT Teacher In Jammu Pending Review, Says Initial Recruitment Alone Cannot Justify Repatriation

In brief

The question

Whether the orders directing the applicant’s repatriation could stand where they failed to account for her subsequent regularisation as a General Line Teacher and the principles in Jyoti Gupta.

The court held

The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the orders dated 24 February 2023 and 1 March 2023 insofar as they directed the applicant’s repatriation without due regard to her regularisation and Jyoti Gupta.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to treat her in accordance with the rules applicable to regularised General Line Teachers and to reconsider her 2019 representation under the applicable transfer policy, taking account of her service particulars and stated family circumstances.

A reasoned order must be issued within six weeks of receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

Pending that decision, she may continue at the Jammu school; no costs were awarded.

01Facts

The applicant was engaged as a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teacher in 2004 and regularised as a General Line Teacher in 2010.

¶ 5–10

In 2017, she was transferred from Ramban to Jammu on marriage grounds and posted at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban.

¶ 5–10

Her request, made in 2019, to extend her Jammu posting remained undecided; following directions in an earlier writ petition to consider it, the respondents rejected the request in 2023 and directed her to report to her original place of posting.

¶ 5–10

She challenged the rejection and consequential relieving order, relying on her regularisation and the Tribunal’s decision in Jyoti Gupta.

¶ 5–10, 17

The Tribunal had granted interim protection permitting her to continue at the Jammu school.

¶ 15–16

02Issues

i.Whether the orders directing the applicant’s repatriation could stand where they failed to account for her subsequent regularisation as a General Line Teacher and the principles in Jyoti Gupta.

¶ 23, 27–29

ii.Whether the applicant’s marriage-ground request entitled her to continue at Jammu, or instead required reconsideration under the applicable transfer policy and service rules.

¶ 31–32

03Law Applied

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to challenge the service orders.

¶ 1

The Tribunal applied the principle in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Others, O.A. No. 161 of 2023 and connected matters, that employees regularised as General Line Teachers cannot be subjected to differential service conditions, including transfer restrictions, solely because they were initially recruited as ReT teachers; their service rights are governed by the rules applicable to their regularised cadre.

¶ 17–20, 25–27

In applying that principle, the Tribunal referred to the requirements for valid classification under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as discussed in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, AIR 1952 SC 75, and Union of India v. Atul Shukla, AIR 2015 SC 1777.

¶ 19

Jyoti Gupta did not, however, establish an unconditional right to remain at a particular station; a posting request remains subject to the applicable transfer policy, service rules and administrative requirements.

¶ 32

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

Because the applicant asserted that she had been regularised as a General Line Teacher, her initial ReT engagement could not, by itself, justify requiring her to return to her original place of engagement. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable to the extent they relied on that basis without due regard to her regularisation and Jyoti Gupta.

¶ 26–30, 34

But her marriage-related circumstances—including her husband’s government service in Poonch and her minor children—did not establish an automatic right to remain in Jammu. Those circumstances had to be assessed under the transfer policy and applicable rules, without treating her as a separate class solely because of her initial ReT recruitment.

¶ 31–32