Supreme Court Protects ReT Candidates’ Rights, Allows Appointments Despite Scheme Closure with TET

News Citation : LN (SC) 439

May 2, 2026 : The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling modifying the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s judgment on the closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme, holding that the 2018 closure cannot retrospectively extinguish the rights of candidates already placed in select panels, subject to compliance with statutory qualifications.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, arose from a batch of civil appeals challenging the High Court’s decision upholding Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated November 16, 2018, which formally closed the ReT scheme and cancelled pending recruitment processes.

The Court acknowledged that while the State has the authority to discontinue recruitment schemes, such executive action cannot result in arbitrary classification. It held that denying appointments solely because litigation was pending at the time of the closure order is an “extraneous” ground and fails the twin test of reasonable classification under Article 14.

The Bench noted that the sole distinguishing factor between appointed and non-appointed candidates was the pendency of litigation, which bore no rational nexus to the object of the closure order. The State had justified the closure partly on concerns such as fake qualifications and declining educational standards, but the Court found that litigation status had no connection with these concerns.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that the mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Article 21-A of the Constitution must prevail. It reiterated that minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), including passing the Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), are mandatory for all teaching appointments.

Relying on its earlier decision in Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Court underscored that TET is not merely procedural but integral to ensuring quality education, forming part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21-A.

Balancing competing considerations, the Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 to craft a pragmatic solution. It accepted the State’s proposal to accommodate merit-listed candidates who were denied appointments due to pending litigation, provided they meet the required qualifications.

Accordingly, the Court issued the following key directions:

• Candidates in select panels must be appointed within eight weeks, subject to availability of vacancies.
• Appointees must acquire minimum qualifications, including clearing TET, within three years and three attempts.
• The State must conduct TET annually to facilitate compliance.
• Seniority will be redrawn based on original panel position, not date of appointment.
• Failure to acquire qualifications within the stipulated period may result in termination.

The Court also clarified that these directions apply broadly to similarly situated candidates and are issued in rem, though they do not revive the ReT scheme itself.

Importantly, the Bench flagged the issue of inadequate honorarium under the scheme, observing that the existing ₹3,000 payment is insufficient and urging the State to reconsider remuneration to ensure quality education delivery.

The ruling strikes a careful balance between protecting the accrued rights of candidates and enforcing statutory standards in education, reinforcing that equity in public employment must operate within the framework of constitutional and legislative mandates.

Case: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. v. Saba Wani and Ors. (2026 INSC 439)