ReT Scheme closure protects only candidates in Directorate-approved select panels, not tentative merit-list candidates.

The petitioner challenged her exclusion from the merit panel for engagement as a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Teacher at Government High School, Saroti, Village Khabber, Zone Moghla.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 4 October 2013 for four ReT posts, twelve candidates applied.

The petitioner stood fourth in the merit list, while candidates placed above her were either found not to be physically residing in the relevant village or had been empanelled elsewhere.

Despite her position, she was declared ineligible on the ground that she did not reside in the relevant village.

A Tehsildar’s report dated 24 April 2015 allegedly confirmed that she was a resident of that village

During the pendency of the writ petition, the ReT Scheme was closed by Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16 November 2018.

The respondents contended that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Saba Wani, the petitioner’s rights were not protected because her selection had not matured into an approved select panel.

Whether the petitioner’s claim remained enforceable after the closure of the ReT Scheme in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Saba Wani.

Whether the merit list prepared by the Zonal Education Officer constituted a “select panel” sufficient to protect the petitioner’s claimed right to engagement under paragraph 25(a) of Saba Wani.

The Court applied Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16 November 2018, by which the ReT Scheme was closed.

It relied principally on Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Saba Wani, SLP (Civil) No. 12210 of 2013, especially paragraph 25(a), which protected candidates placed in approved select panels from the retrospective effect of the Scheme’s closure and directed engagement subject to available vacancies.

Paragraphs 25(g) and 25(h), which extended the directions in rem to similarly situated litigants whose cases had been filed before the judgment.

Paragraph 25(i), which clarified that the directions neither revived the Scheme nor created rights in candidates who were not part of a prepared select panel.

The Court further relied on paragraph 17 of Saba Wani, which identified the stages of the ReT selection process, including approval of the select panel by the Directorate.

Accordingly, only a panel approved by the Directorate qualified as a “select panel” for purposes of the protective directions.

The Court held that the petitioner’s name appeared only in a merit list issued by the Zonal Education Officer, with an endorsement that she was ineligible because she was not physically residing in the relevant village.

The selection process had not progressed to preparation of a final panel by the Zonal Education Officer, much less approval of that panel by the Directorate.

Since paragraph 25(a) of Saba Wani protected only candidates placed in an approved select panel, the petitioner did not possess a protected right after closure of the ReT Scheme.

Her pending writ petition could not survive merely because she had challenged the residential-status determination before the Scheme was closed.

The Court also declined to issue any direction in favour of another respondent claiming inclusion in a final panel, as the present proceedings concerned the petitioner’s claim and her writ petition was itself not maintainable after the Scheme’s closure.

It held that the merit list in which her name appeared did not constitute a protected “select panel” under Saba Wani, because it had neither matured into a final panel nor received approval from the Directorate.

Consequently, the closure of the ReT Scheme extinguished the petitioner’s surviving claim to engagement, and the writ petition was dismissed.