HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE FROM SRINAGAR) SWP No.1250/2018 Pronounced on:11.09.2025 Rahul Bandral S/o Sh. Chaggar Singh R/o Village Jansal Tehsil Majalta, District Udhampur …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Ajay K. Gandotra, Advocate V/s 1.State of J&K Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Department of Education, J&K State, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. 2. Director School Education, Muthi, Jammu. 3. Chief Education Officer, Udhampur. 4. Zonal Education Officer, Majalta. 5. Rakesh Sharma, S/o Suraj Parkash R/o Ward No. 1, Village Jansal, Tehsil Majalta, District Udhampur, (J&K) …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG Mr. F. A. Natnoo, Advocate CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition, seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 2 to show compliance to the directions contained in order dated 05.04.2013 passed in SWP No. 97/2012 titled <Rahul Bandral Versus State & Ors.= based upon the notice dated 29th April, 2019 (Annexure-K); 2 (ii) Writ of mandamus directing and commanding official respondents to issue letter of engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in PS Janakha or such other school where the vacancy advertised has occurred w.e.f the date the order of engagement was required to have been issued and the official respondents thereafter be directed to consider the claim of petitioner for the purpose of regularization as Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher in parity with the status of Shamim Akhtar who has been regularized after completion of five years of service as Rehbar- e-Taleem Teacher in NFS Palai falling in Education Zone, Samba; (iii) Writ of certiorari quashing panel (Annexure-G) which is impugned in this writ petition wherein the name of the respondent No. 5 has shown to have existed at Serial No. 1; (iv) Writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 2 and other official respondents to compensate the petitioner by way of damages to be quantified by this Hon'ble Court, while considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case owing to the respondent No.2 having not taken the decision while showing compliance to the directions passed in order dated 05.04.2013 in SWP No. 97/2012, copy whereof was provided along with notice dated 29.04.2013 seekingimplementation of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and by subsequent reminder notice/representation dated 03-04-2018; 1. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 26.03.2010 was issued by respondent No. 3 for one post of ReT Teacher at PS Janakha, Zone Majalta. As per the Advertisement the minimum qualification for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher was 10+2. The petitioner, possessing 10+2 qualification and a BCA degree from Sikkim Manipal University, applied along with respondent No. 5. A tentative merit panel was issued placing the petitioner at Serial No. 1. 3 2. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 vide communication dated 09.09.2010 asked the petitioner to prove the validity of his BCA degree. The Additional Registrar (SE) of Sikkim Manipal, University vide its communication dated 12.05.2011 confirmed his enrollment through distance mode. However, the original panel was altered and respondent No. 5 was placed at the top. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the revised panel in SWP No. 97/2012. This Court, vide order dated 05.04.2013, directed respondent No. 2 to decide the validity of the petitioner’s degree after hearing both parties. It is stated that despite the petitioner submitting representations before the respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2013 and 03.04.2018, till date no decision has been taken. 4. Respondent No. 2 has filed compliance report. 5. A perusal of the compliance report reveals that respondent No. 2, via a speaking order dated 22.07.2019, held that the BCA degree possessed by the petitioner is invalid for the post. 6. Respondents have also filed objections. According to the respondents the ReT Scheme has since been discontinued vide Government Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, which stipulates that all advertisement notices and unacted panels shall be deemed cancelled ab initio. 4 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 8. The RET Scheme stands closed and vide judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in case Ruksana Jabeen vs. State of J&K and others (SWP No. 3004/2028 decided on 04.02.2023) as also judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of U.T of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs. Jatinder Singh and Another, (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17409 of 2021, decided on 14.10.2024) the order of closure of the RET Scheme has been upheld. While upholding the decision of the respondents to close down the Scheme, the Division Bench culled out the following conclusions:- (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 impugned Government order, the respondents shall abide by the judgments passed by any competent Court of law which have attained finality. However, the writ petitions involving adjudication of disputes in respect of tentative merit lists or tentative select panels shall be liable to be 5 dismissed in view of the impugned Government order, in that, it would not be permissible for a Court of law to direct the respondents to finalize the tentative merit lists or tentative select panels and issue engagement orders in view of closure of the scheme and a clear stipulation contained in paragraph 2nd of the impugned Government order.” 9. The conclusions culled out by the Division Bench of this Court in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra) lay down that closure of the Scheme will not affect selection panels prepared by the respondents which have been acted upon and formal orders of engagement have been issued. In the case of the petitioner, even if, it is assumed that his name figured in the selection penal, but because admittedly, no formal order of engagement has been issued in his favour, therefore, his rights are not saved in terms of Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra). Thus, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed, as such. (SINDHU SHARMA) Judge SRINAGAR 11.09.2025 BIR