Serial No. 30 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case : SWP No. 671/2013 Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Gahi Jagir, P.O. Dadoa, Block PounI, Tehsll & District Reasi. …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. P. S. Pawar, Advocate VERSUS 1.State of Jammu & Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Department of School Education, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Civil Sectt., Jammu. 2. Director, School Education, Jammu. 3. Chief Education Officer, Reasi. 4. Zonal Education Officer, Pouni, Tehsil & Distt. Reasi. 5. District Development Commissioner, Reasi. 6. Tehsildar, Reasi. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 10.03.2025 1. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition has challenged Advertisement Notice dated 12.03.2012, whereby corrigendum has issued to the 2 SWP No. 671 of 2013 earlier advertisement notice dated 23.12.2010, inviting applications for Rahber- e-Taleem teachers for various zones. The petitioner has also sought a mandamus upon the respondents to complete the selection process initiated by them in pursuance to earlier Advertisement Notice dated 23.12.2010. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that 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. On this ground it is being contended that it is not permissible for this Court to grant the reliefs prayed in the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 3. I have heard leaned counsels for the parties and perused record of the case. 4. As per case of the petitioner, he had applied for the post of Rahber-e- Taleem teacher for the vacancy in UPS Gahi situated in village Gani Jagir in Block Pouni pursuant to earlier Advertisement Notice dated 23.12.2010. It has been submitted that the petitioner was the only available candidate for the said post, but the respondents prepared a panel of candidates in which basically petitioner who was shown at serial No. 1, candidates figuring at serial Nos. 2 to 4 were also included through they were not the residents of the said village. It has been further submitted that a complaint came to be filed again the petitioner 3 SWP No. 671 of 2013 alleging therein that he was not a resident of the relevant village. It has been submitted that on the basis of the report dated 15.06.2011 submitted by the Naib Tehsildar to respondent No. 6, the petitioner was held not entitled to the post of Rahber-e-Taleem teacher and against this the petitioner filed a number of representations before respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It has been contended that the respondents instead of dealing with the representations of the petitioner issued corrigendum to the advertisement notice dated 23.12.2010 in terms of impugned notice dated 12.3.2012 whereby criteria for selection has been changed. 6. It is a admitted fact that Scheme of Rahber-e-Taleem teacher has been closed down by the respondents in terms of Govt. Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018, which was a subject matter of challenge in a number of writ petitions that came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra). 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 dismissed in view of the impugned Government order, in that, it would not be permissible for a Court of law to direct 4 SWP No. 671 of 2013 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.” 7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether rights of the petitioner on account of his name having found mention in the selection panel which was latter on annulled by the respondents are protected in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Divisions Bench. 8. 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. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition due to the aforesaid subsequent developments has become infructuous. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge JAMMU 10.03.2025 Bir Whether order is reportable: Yes/No BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.03.19 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document