Pre-regularization service under scheme cannot count for cadre seniority; executive orders cannot override statutory recruitment rules.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.1725/2014 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.290/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

a) Allow this writ petition of the petitioner.

b) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking quashment of Government Order No. 469-Edu of 2014 dated 25-06-2014 issued by the respondent No.2.

c) Issue writ in nature of Prohibition restraining the respondent authorities from placing such Rehber-e-Taleem Teachers(Community Level Workers) over and above the petitioners in the seniority list of General Line Teacher/ Teacher by giving them benefit of their five years service as RET.

d) Any other writ command order or direction as the facts of the case demands and this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, in the given facts and circumstances.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -

The petitioner most respectfully submits as under: -

a) The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1725/2014, which stood transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 290/2025. The applicants, ten in number, are General Line Teachers appointed in different years between 2004 and 2009 under the Jammu and Kashmir Education (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979, as amended from time to time, particularly in the year 2008.

b) The applicants challenge Government Order No. 469-Edu of 2014 dated 25.06.2014, whereby a proviso was inserted in the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme originally notified vide Government Order No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000. By virtue of the impugned order, five years’ service rendered by RET teachers prior to their regularization has been directed to be counted for the purpose of seniority, pensionary benefits and transfer after regularization as General Line Teachers.

c) According to the applicants, they are direct recruits appointed through a statutory selection process conducted by the competent recruiting authority in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 1979. Their appointment followed a competitive merit-based process involving scrutiny of qualifications and selection against sanctioned district-cadre posts. After appointment, they have continuously served as General Line Teachers and earned seniority strictly in accordance with statutory rules governing the cadre.

d) The grievance of the applicants is that the impugned Government Order places RET teachers, who were initially engaged as community-level workers on honorarium basis under a special scheme, at par with regularly appointed General Line Teachers. It is contended that the impugned order illegally grants retrospective seniority to RET teachers by counting their period of engagement prior to regularization, thereby unsettling the settled seniority of regularly appointed teachers and violating statutory service rules.

e) It is further pleaded that the RET Scheme was never a mode of recruitment to a civil post under statutory rules but was a temporary, localized, and scheme-based engagement meant to address teacher shortages in far-flung and inaccessible areas. RET teachers were engaged by Village Level Committees, HARSHIT Digitaly signed by received honorarium and not salary, and were not borne on any cadre during the engagemen