Scheme closure does not retrospectively invalidate select panels; candidates entitled to engagement subject to acquiring NCTE qualifications including TET within 3 years/3 attempts, else termination, ensuring parity and quality education standards.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present batch of appeals involves a common question of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. Except for appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 25683/2023, 25684/2023, 25685/2023, 25686/2023, 2720/2024 and 5221/2024, all other appeals have been preferred assailing the common judgment dated 04.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) in SWP No. 3801 of 2019 and connected matters. As far as appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 25683/2023, 25684/2023, 25685/2023, 25686/2023, 2720/2024 and 5221/2024 are concerned, they have been preferred against the orders dated 06.02.2023 in SWP No. 2467 of 2018, 27.02.2023 in WP (C) No. 393 of 2021, 10.03.2023 in WP (C) No. 944 of 2020, 12.05.2023 in WP (C) No. 819 of 2020, 06.02.2023 in WP (C) No. 3658 of 2019 and 06.02.2023 in SWP No. 108 of 2019, wherein the judgment passed in SWP No. 3801 of 2019 has been relied upon by the High Court while disposing of the respective petitions. Accordingly, for the sake of brevity, any reference to the impugned order hereinafter shall be understood as a reference to the judgment passed in SWP No. 3801 of 2019, unless the context otherwise requires.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, various Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court whereby it was prayed to quash Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 (hereinafter, ‘Closure Order’) by which the State Government formally closed the Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme (hereinafter, ‘ReT’) and also announced cancellation/withdrawal of all advertisement notices issued for engagement of ReTs or panels prepared, where no engagement orders had been issued. The said challenge was primarily premised on the ground that placement of candidates in select panel, that had not been acted upon, was being nullified by the closure order taking away the rights vested consequent to the placement of their names in selection panel. Since such candidates were restricted from their engagement because of closure order of ReTs and due to pending litigation.

5. The High Court, while upholding the constitutionality of the Closure Order, carved out certain exceptions. The relevant paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference –

“31. We have heard both the sides at some length on the impact of the Government order on the pending litigation and we cull out our conclusion as under:

(i) That the impugned Government order will not affect the select panels prepared by the respondents which have been acted upon and formal orders of engagement have been issued;

(ii) That the impugned Government Order will not override or effect the judgments passed or to be passed by this Court holding a candidate/candidates entitled to engagement in the selection process which was/is under challenge before the Court;

(iii) Where the select panels are approved and the aggrieved party has approached the Court before it could be acted upon, shall also be not affected by the impugned Government order, in that, but for litigation in the Court, the approved panel/panels could have been acted upon and formal letters of engagement in favour of the selected candidates issued prior to the issuance of the impugned Government order; and,

(iv) Notwithstanding issuance of the