ReT case: SC directs J&K Govt to issue engagement orders within 8 weeks

New Delhi, May 2: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to issue engagement orders to candidates selected under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme, holding that the scheme’s closure cannot retrospectively deny appointments to those already placed in select panels.
The order came while disposing of a batch of petitions, including the case involving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir versus Saba Wani, with the court modifying earlier High Court directions.
The court ruled that candidates included in the select panels must be appointed based on available vacancies and their merit position. It directed the administration to issue formal engagement orders within eight weeks.
However, the court imposed conditions regarding qualifications. It said that candidates appointed under the scheme must acquire the minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), including qualifying the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), within three years and up to three attempts.
The judgment further stated that after acquiring the required qualifications and clearing TET, such appointees would be eligible for regularization after completing two years of service.
The court clarified that these conditions would also apply to similarly placed candidates who have already been appointed under the ReT scheme but do not meet the required qualifications.
It also directed that seniority among such candidates be determined based on their position in the original select panels, rather than the date of appointment or regularization.
The court warned that candidates who fail to acquire the required qualifications or clear TET within the stipulated period may face termination of services.
At the same time, the court made it clear that the ruling does not revive the ReT scheme or create rights for those who were not part of the select panels or had not approached courts earlier.
The judgment, issued under Article 142 of the Constitution, was described as specific to the facts of the case and not to be treated as a precedent. [KNT]