Serial No. 43 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case : WP(C) 4221/2019 1.Naresh Slngh, S/o Sh. Babu Ram, R/o Village Pretha, Tehsil and District Kathua. 2. Shiveta Sharma, D/o Sh. Lachhman Dass Sharma R/o Village Jawalapur, Tehsil Dharamshalla and District Kishtwar. 3. Pawan Kumar, S/o Sh. Dewan Chand, R/o Village Godal, Tehsil and District Kathua. 4. Pummy Devi, W/o Sh. Jattu Ram, R/o Village Balihote, Tehsil and District Ramban. 5. Shazia Kousar, D/o Sh. Mohd Hanif, R/o Village Kakora, Tehsil Manjakote and District Rajouri. 6. Sushma Devi, W/o Manohar Lal, R/o Lari, Tehsil Basohli, District Kathua. 7.Satya Devi, D/o Sh. Bhabi Chand, R/o Village Bhatkoot, Tehsil Dharamshalla, District Kishtwar. 8. Saliha Sayed, S/o Sh. Mohd, Sayed, R/o Sarwal, Tehsil and District Doda. 9. Attya Banoo, D/o Atta Ullah Wani R/o Sarwal, Tehsil and District Doda. 10. Rukhsana Tabassum, D/o Mohd. Abdullah 2 WP(C) 4221 of 2019 R/o Chachawha, Tehsil Gool and District Ramban. 11. Mohammad Rafi, S/o Abdul Shakoor, R/o Village Nar Hayatpura Tehsil Manjakote and District Rajouri. 12. Nazia Tabassum, D/o Abdul Rashid R/o Village Kakora Tehsil Manjakote, District Rajouri. …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Syed Nadeem Hamdani, Advocate VERSUS 1.Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Through Commissioner Secretary, School Education Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu/Srinagar. 2. Director School Education, Jammu. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 05.03.2025 1. The petitioners have, by way of present writ petition sought the following reliefs:- (i) Certiorari, Quashing Government order no. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 issued by the government in the school education Department whereby Rahber-e-Taleem scheme for engagement /appointment of persons as Rahber-e-Taleem teachers in various schools has been formally closed, effecting even the persons who have already faced the process of selection and whose cases are either in the pipeline or subjudice before the Hon'ble High court both at Jammu and at Srinagar, being arbitrary, unjust and illegal. (ii) Mandamus: - commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for their appointment as Rahber-e-Taleem teacher keeping their case out of purview of the impugned Government order no.919- Edu of 2018 dated 16-11-2018.” 3 WP(C) 4221 of 2019 2. Reply on behalf of the respondents stands filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that 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 impugned order of closure of the RET Scheme has been upheld, as such, the relief prayed in the writ petition cannot be granted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and perused record of the case. 5. As per the case of the petitioners, they had applied for selection as Rahber-e-Taleem teachers (RET) pursuant to Advertisement Notificaions issued by the respondents on different dates. It has been submitted that cases of the petitioners are still in the pipeline and are pending consideration before the respondents, but in the meantime Govt. Order No. 919-Edu of 2018 dated 16.11.2018 came to be issued by the respondents whereby Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme was formally closed. The petitioners have placed on record along with their writ petition copies of tentative select lists of the candidates who were being considered for engagement as RET pursuant to the advertisement notifications issued by the respondents. The petitioners claim that their names figure in these tentative select lists and that these select lists have been approved by the Competent Authority. It has been claimed that the Division Bench judgment in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra) and judgment of the Supreme Court 4 WP(C) 4221 of 2019 in Jatinder Singh’s case (supra) do not have any bearing on the present writ petition. 6. The closure of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme by the respondents in terms of Govt. Order dated 16.11.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition was a subject matter of challenge in a number of writ petitions which 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 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. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have assailed the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench to the extent of aforesaid conclusions only and the judgment has been stayed by the Supreme 5 WP(C) 4221 of 2019 Court to the extent of afore quoted conclusions. Since, the judgment of the Division Bench so far as it upholds the closure of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme is concerned, the same has not been stayed by the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the relief sought by the petitioners for impugning the closure of the scheme is not available to them, as the issue has already been determined by a larger Bench of this Court. 8. The second issue would be as to whether alleged rights of the petitioners on account of having found their names in the selection panels are protected in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. 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 petitioners, even if it is assumed that their names figure in the select panel, but admittedly, no formal orders of engagement have been issued in their favour. Therefore, their rights are not saved in terms of the judgment passed in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra). Thus, even if it is assumed that the challenge to the judgment in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra) launched by respondent-State fails still then the alleged rights of the petitioners merely on account of their figuring in the panels, are not saved. Even conclusion (ii) of Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra) does not apply to the case of the petitioners because it is not their case that the panels in which were figuring have been either subject matter of any litigation or that there has been any stay from any Court in respect of those panels. Thus, the alleged rights of the petitioners are not saved even in terms of clause (iii) of the conclusion arrived at in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra). 6 WP(C) 4221 of 2019 10. Apart from the above, the Supreme Court has, in Jatinder Singh’s case (supra) unequivocally held that in view of the applicability of Right of Education Act to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir there cannot be appointment under the relaxed scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme, which was applicable prior to the issuance of the impugned closure order by the Government. Thus, on this ground also the petitioners cannot seek a mandamus for their appointment under the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed, as such. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge JAMMU 05.03.2025 Bir Whether order is reportable: Yes/No