SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recalled its order dismissing a 2012 writ petition challenging the selection and engagement of a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teacher in Doda and restored the case for consideration on merits, holding that the subsequent clarification by the Supreme Court on the closure of the ReT Scheme warranted reconsideration of the matter. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, in an order pronounced on September 28, 2026, said the petitioner’s challenge should not be foreclosed merely on the ground of the passage of time or closure of the scheme, while making it clear that the court had not expressed any opinion on her entitlement to appointment.
The petition was filed by Nasira Bano, daughter of Mohd. Latif Bhat and resident of Sharore, Village Mandole, Tehsil and District Doda, against the Government and education authorities as well as Naresh Raina, who had been selected and engaged as a ReT teacher in the Science stream at UPS Sharore, Education Zone Bhagwah.
Bano, represented by advocate SS Ahmed, had challenged the final selection panel for the post insofar as it related to Raina. The panel had been endorsed by the Director, School Education, Jammu, on October 1, 2010, while Raina’s engagement order was issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Bhagwah, on October 26, 2012.
Her case was that she was more meritorious than Raina, particularly in Science at the 10+2 level, and was consequently entitled to selection and engagement against the post.
The High Court had initially directed on December 27, 2012 that Raina’s engagement would remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings. The respondents subsequently filed their objections, but the writ petition remained pending for several years.
When the matter came up on February 4, 2025, Bano’s counsel did not appear. The official respondents submitted that the petition had become infructuous because of the passage of time, the closure of the ReT Scheme and the pendency of the issue before the Supreme Court. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.
Bano thereafter approached the High Court seeking recall of the dismissal order. She submitted that her counsel’s absence had neither been intentional nor deliberate and was the result of a bona fide oversight, as the matter had not been marked in the counsel’s cause list. She further stated that she came to know about the dismissal only on July 12, 2026, after making an inquiry about the status of the petition, and thereafter took immediate steps to seek its restoration.
In deciding the recall application, Justice Nargal took note of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Saba Wani, decided on April 30, 2026, in SLP (Civil) No. 12210 of 2023.
The Supreme Court had considered the effect of the closure of the ReT Scheme on candidates whose names figured in prepared selection panels. The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s direction that the closure order dated November 16, 2018, would not retrospectively impair the rights of candidates placed in select panels.
The Supreme Court had directed that candidates placed in the respective select panels be issued engagement or appointment orders according to their position in the select panel, having regard to available vacancies and subject to conditions relating to prescribed qualifications and the Teacher Eligibility Test.
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had also specifically extended its directions to candidates who were litigating in courts in cases instituted before the date of that judgment. At the same time, the Supreme Court had clarified that its judgment did not revive the ReT Scheme or create a fresh cause of action for candidates who had not approached the courts in time.
Justice Nargal observed that the applicant’s case had to be examined against this legal position because she had instituted her writ petition in 2012, several years before the November 16, 2018 closure order.
“The applicant’s case stands on its own factual footing,” the court observed, pointing out that her challenge was specifically directed against the selection and engagement of Raina and was based on her assertion that she was more meritorious.
The court said the original controversy was therefore not merely about continuation of the ReT Scheme after its closure. It involved the legality of the selection itself.
Justice Nargal observed that several substantive questions had never been adjudicated, including whether Bano was in fact more meritorious than Raina, whether Raina’s selection had been made in accordance with the applicable criteria and whether Bano was entitled to any consequential relief in light of the Supreme Court’s directions.
The court also emphasised that the present proceedings concerned only the recall of the dismissal order and restoration of the writ petition and did not require it to determine at this stage whether Bano was actually more meritorious or entitled to appointment.
“Having regard to the totality of the facts, it would be in the interest of justice that the applicant’s challenge is considered on its merits rather than being foreclosed on the ground on which the writ petition came to be dismissed,” Justice Nargal said.
Allowing the application, the court ordered that its February 4, 2025 dismissal order be recalled and that SWP No. 2734/2012 be restored to its original number for consideration on merits.
The case has been listed for hearing on October 12, 2026.
The judge made it clear, however, that the restoration of the writ petition should not be understood as a finding in favour of Bano’s claim. “Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the writ petition or on the applicant’s entitlement to appointment,” the court said, adding that those issues would be considered independently in accordance with law.
The order was reserved on September 15 and pronounced on September 28 by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal. Bano was represented by S. S. Ahmed, Advocate, while no one appeared for private respondent Naresh Raina.
