Naheed Kouser vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 15 July, 2026

    0
    9
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Naheed Kouser vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 15 July, 2026

    Author: Rajnesh Oswal

    Bench: Rajnesh Oswal

                                                                                2026:JKLHC-JMU:2114
                                                                        Serial No. 147
    
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                    AT JAMMU
    WP(C) No. 2138/2026
    CM No. 4614/2026
    
    Naheed Kouser                                    .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
                           Through: Mr. Bari Abdullah, Advocate.
    
                    vs
    UT of J&K and others                                       ..... Respondent(s)
                           Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with
                                    Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate.
    
    Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                                  ORDER(ORAL)
    

    15.07.2026

    1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

    SPONSORED

    commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

    selection as a Rehabber Taleem Guide/Teacher Middle School Sahib

    Karmara Poonch.

    2. It is stated that after the petitioner applied for the above mentioned

    post, the panel was prepared by the respondents and the petitioner

    being 12th and Scheduled Tribe was shown as S. No. 1, but the

    candidate at S. No. 2 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner

    Poonch and on that appeal, after hearing both the parties, the appellate

    authority dismissed the appeal on 15.01.2015 of the candidate at S.

    No. 2 in the panel and thereafter another appeal was preferred against

    the order of Deputy Commissioner Poonch before the Divisional

    Commissioner, Jammu and that too was dismissed on 21.07.2018.

    Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was processed by the
    2 WP(C) No. 2138/2026
    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2114

    respondents, but due to closure of the RET Scheme by the UT of J&K,

    the matter was deferred and could not be considered, however, in view

    of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in RET matter in

    SLP No. 12210 of 2023 tilted UT of J&K and other vs. Saba Wani, the

    petitioner is seeking consideration of her case.

    3. Issue notice to the respondents.

    4. Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate waives notice on behalf of the

    respondents. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards Para

    25(h) of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

    petitioner and submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be

    considered, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had not

    initiated any litigation prior to the judgment (supra) of the Hon’ble

    Apex Court and when no litigation was pending on the date of

    judgment, the relief sought by her can’t be granted.

    5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    6. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble

    Supreme Court of India in case titled as Union Territory of Jammu

    & Kashmir and others vs. Saba Wani reported in 2026 INSC 439,

    relevant para No. 25 whereof is extracted as under:

    “25. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to
    issue following directions-

    a. The Closure Order of ReT Scheme dated 16.11.2018
    for cancellation/withdrawal shall not retrospectively
    impair the right of the candidates found placed in
    the select panel. In view of the discussion made
    hereinabove, the candidates placed in respective
    select panels shall be issued
    engagement/appointment orders as per their
    position in the select panel having regard to the
    available vacancies.

    3 WP(C) No. 2138/2026

    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2114

    b. The State shall issue the formal engagement orders
    to the candidates of select panel within a period of
    eight weeks in terms of the direction (a) above.

    c. Candidates appointed as per directions (a) and (b)
    from the select panel under the ReT Scheme are
    directed to acquire minimum qualification
    prescribed under NCTE Regulations and
    Notifications, including to qualify the TET, within 3
    years and 3 attempts from date of their engagement/
    appointment. In this regard, the State is directed to
    organize the TET annually. After successfully
    acquiring the minimum qualification and passing
    TET within prescribed time limit, the services of
    such appointees shall be, accordingly, regularized
    on completion of two years of service thereafter.

    d. The direction (c) above shall be applicable to the
    other similarly situated candidates who have
    already been appointed from the select panels under
    the RET Scheme after 23.08.2010 i.e., the date of
    NCTE notification prescribing minimum
    qualifications and prior to the issuance of Closure
    Order, and do not possess minimum qualification
    including TET as per the notification of NCTE.
    However, those appointees shall acquire prescribed
    qualification within the time as specified in direction

    (c).

    e. It is obligatory upon this Court to direct that once
    the candidates/appointees under the ReT Scheme
    have acquired the prescribed qualifications and
    qualified the TET as indicated above, the seniority of
    all such candidates/ appointees shall be redrawn
    and determined by the competent authority of the
    State, maintaining their respective positions in the
    select panels uninfluenced by the date of
    appointment, joining or regularization. The inter se
    seniority shall also be determined accordingly.

    f. It is further directed that if the
    candidates/appointees including those already
    appointed and regularized who do not
    acquire/possess the requisite qualifications in terms
    of the NCTE notifications and fail to qualify the TET
    within the period prescribed hereinabove, the State
    is at liberty to dispense with their services as the
    mandate of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India
    cannot be left at altar even while rendering complete
    justice invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of
    India. It is further clarified that those
    candidates/appointees would not have any claim
    4 WP(C) No. 2138/2026
    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2114

    with respect to seniority or regularization as
    directed hereinabove.

    g. The directions issued hereinabove are in rem and
    shall apply mutatis mutandis to the candidates
    already appointed pursuant to 74 advertisements
    that are subject matter of present proceedings,
    though they are not party to the present appeals. In
    view thereof, this judgment shall be widely
    publicized, and all the candidates/appointees shall
    be duly informed of these directions so that they can
    take recourse for acquiring the minimum
    qualification as per NCTE Regulations and
    Notifications, if they have not already acquired the
    same.

    h. The directions contained in clauses (a) to (g)
    hereinabove shall apply to all the candidates who
    are litigating in any Court and such cases have been
    filed prior to the date of this judgement. It is further
    clarified that candidates who have not already filed
    cases in any Court shall neither acquire any fresh
    cause of action by virtue of these directions nor be
    entitled to seek any further directions from any
    Court in that regard.

    i. At the cost of repetition, it is clarified that this
    judgment shall not be construed as reviving the ReT
    Scheme for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be
    interpreted so as to create or confer any
    right upon candidates who were not part of a
    prepared select panel or who failed to approach the
    Court timely. Moreover, these directions are being
    issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
    case invoking the power under Article 142 of the
    Constitution of India and it shall not be treated as
    precedent in any manner whatsoever.

    j. In view of the observations made in para 24 above,
    we believe that the State Government shall apply
    their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case
    and the situation prevalent in the State and to take
    an appropriate decision with respect to the revision
    of the honorarium of such teachers as they deem fit.

    7. In terms of Para 25(h) of the judgment (supra), it has been specifically

    provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the directions

    contained in Para 25(a) to (g) shall apply to all the candidates who are

    litigating in any Court and all such cases that have been filed prior to
    5 WP(C) No. 2138/2026
    2026:JKLHC-JMU:2114

    the date of judgement (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further

    clarified that candidates who have not already filed cases in any Court

    shall neither acquire any fresh cause of action by virtue of these

    directions nor be entitled to seek any further directions from any Court

    in that regard.

    8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the

    instant writ petition is misconceived and the same is, accordingly,

    dismissed, along with the connected application.

    (RAJNESH OSWAL)
    JUDGE

    Jammu
    15.07.2026
    Sahil Padha
    Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
    Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here