SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday delivered a significant ruling on the long-running dispute over the closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme in Jammu and Kashmir, holding that candidates placed in select panels cannot be denied appointment solely due to the scheme’s closure, while mandating that such appointees must meet statutory teaching qualifications within a fixed timeframe.
The judgment, pronounced on April 30, 2026, by a division Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, disposed of a batch of civil appeals arising out of multiple Special Leave Petitions filed by both the Jammu and Kashmir administration and affected candidates. The appeals primarily challenged a common judgment dated February 4, 2023, of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
The controversy traces back to Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated November 16, 2018, by which the erstwhile State government formally closed the ReT scheme, a grassroots recruitment model introduced in 2000 to address teacher shortages in remote and underserved areas.
While the scheme had facilitated thousands of appointments over nearly two decades, the closure order also cancelled all pending advertisements and select panels where engagement orders had not been issued. This led to litigation by candidates who had been empanelled but not appointed.
In its 2023 judgment, the High Court upheld the validity of the closure order but carved out limited exceptions, protecting certain categories of candidates, particularly those whose selection panels had been approved or were subject to pending litigation.
The State challenged parts of the High Court ruling that preserved rights of some candidates, while private parties contested the upholding of the closure order itself.
During proceedings, the State, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj—argued that continuation of appointments under the ReT scheme had become legally untenable after the enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the regulatory framework of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which prescribes minimum qualifications, including the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
On the other hand, senior counsel appearing for the candidates contended that many similarly placed individuals had already been appointed from the same select panels, and denying appointments to others merely due to pending litigation violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court found that the classification between candidates who were appointed and those denied appointment, based solely on whether litigation was pending at the time of the closure order, was arbitrary and lacked a rational nexus with the stated objective of the policy.
The Court noted that the closure order was aimed at addressing issues such as fake qualifications and declining educational standards, and that exclusion of candidates due to pending litigation was an extraneous consideration.
At the same time, the Bench underscored that, following the enforcement of the RTE Act, compliance with minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE, including clearing TET, was mandatory for all teachers, whether newly appointed or already in service.
Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to “do complete justice,” the Court issued a set of binding directions to balance competing claims:
Candidates whose names figure in duly prepared select panels prior to the closure order are to be issued appointment orders, subject to availability of vacancies. The State has been directed to complete this exercise within eight weeks.
However, such appointees must acquire the minimum qualifications prescribed under NCTE regulations, including clearing the TET, within three years and a maximum of three attempts. The Court also directed the administration to conduct the TET annually to facilitate compliance.
The ruling further extends this requirement to teachers already appointed under the ReT scheme after August 23, 2010, who do not possess the prescribed qualifications.
Significantly, the Court held that once candidates acquire the required qualifications, their seniority must be determined based on their original position in the select panels, and not on the date of appointment or regularisation.
At the same time, the Court clarified that failure to meet qualification requirements within the stipulated period would result in termination of service, emphasising that the constitutional mandate of quality education under Article 21-A cannot be compromised.
During the hearings, the State informed the Court that over 39,000 ReT teachers had been appointed between 2002 and 2018. In the specific cases under consideration, 74 advertisements had resulted in 1,679 empanelled candidates, out of whom 1,538 were appointed prior to the closure order.
The Court observed that in many instances, appointments were stalled solely due to pending litigation, which it held could not be a valid ground for differential treatment.
The judgment is expected to impact hundreds of candidates whose appointments were stalled despite being empanelled, while also reinforcing the statutory framework governing teacher eligibility in India.
Importantly, the Court clarified that the ruling does not revive the ReT scheme and is confined to the peculiar facts of the case. It also directed that the judgment be widely publicised to ensure that affected candidates are informed and can comply with qualification requirements.
The Court made no order as to costs and disposed of all pending applications along with the appeals
