WP(C) No. 594/2026 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 10.03.2026 Uploaded on : 12.03.2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 Nasreen Akther …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Verma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (10.03.2026) 01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order dated 29.01.2018 passed by respondent No. 4-Zonal Education Officer Bufliaz, Poonch, whereby the claim of petitioner for her appointment as Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Teacher in Government Middle School Kalahari, Education Zone Buffliaz, District Poonch, has been rejected. Serial No. 134 Supplementary List -1 WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 Page 2 of 7 02. Heard and considered. 03. It appears that the petitioner had applied for the post of Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Teacher in Government Middle School Kalahari, District Poonch pursuant to Advertisement Notice dated 19.07.2012. She was figuring at Sr. No. 03 of the tentative selection panel published in the newspaper on 26.12.2013. According to the petitioner, the candidates figuring at Sr. No. 1 and 2 in the panel, namely, Maqsood Ahmed and Tahir Sheikh were found to be ineligible. It seems that Maqsood Ahmed challenged this action of the respondents by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 189/2014 which was disposed of on 30.01.2014 for being premature in nature. When the respondents did not finalize the selection, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 325/2015 which was disposed of in terms of order dated 12.02.2015 whereby the respondents were directed to take a final decision with regard to the selection process. The petitioner in order to get the order of the writ Court implemented filed a contempt petition bearing CPSW No. 403/2016 before this Court and during the pendency of these proceedings, the impugned order dated 29.01.2018 came to be issued by the respondent No. 4 whereby the WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 Page 3 of 7 claim of the petitioner was rejected. Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2022 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the consideration order. 04. So far as the scheme of engagement of ReT Teachers in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the same admittedly stands closed in terms of Government Order dated 919-EDU/2018 dated 16.11.2018. The closure of the scheme became subject matter of litigation before this Court in several writ petitions and ultimately, the matter landed before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Ruksana Jabeen & Ors. Vs. State of J&K & Ors.” in SWP No. 3004/2018, which was finally decided on 04.02.2023. The Division Bench held that notwithstanding the closure of the scheme, the same would not affect the select panels prepared by the respondents which have been acted upon and the formal orders of engagement have been issued. It was also provided that closure of the scheme will not override or affect the judgments passed or to be passed by this Court holding a candidate entitled to engagement in the selection process. The Court further held that where the select panels are approved and the aggrieved party has WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 Page 4 of 7 approached the Court before it could be acted upon, the same shall not be affected by the closure of the scheme. Besides this, the Division Bench held that the government shall abide by all the judgments passed by any competent courts of law which have attained finality. 05. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Division Bench with regard to effect of closure of scheme on pending cases has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the stay order passed by the Supreme Court, the case of the petitioner does not even fit into the situations contemplated by the Division Bench in Ruksana Jabeen’s case (supra) because in the present case, panel after its preparation was not acted upon nor any formal order of engagement has been issued before the closure of the scheme. It is also not a case where the petitioner has not been held entitled to engagement as a ReT Teacher by any Court order nor it is a case where approved select panels could not be acted upon because of any litigation. Thus, the claim of the petitioner, pursuant to closure of the ReT Scheme is not saved even in terms of the judgment passed in Ruksana Jabeen’s WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 Page 5 of 7 case (supra). On this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 06. Apart from the above, there has been unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the impugned consideration order. The said order has been issued on 29th January, 2018 and the contempt petition during the pendency of which the said order came to be placed before the Court was decided on 31st January, 2022. The petitioner has approached this Court after more than four years of coming to know about the passing of the consideration order. The petitioner has not explained the reasons for the delay in approaching this Court after more than four years of coming to know about the consideration. 07. It is well settled that power of High Courts to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. In a case where there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a petition and such decision is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 Page 6 of 7 intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The doctrine of delay and laches cannot be lightly brushed aside. Therefore, a writ Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and acceptability of the same. 08. The Supreme Court in the case of “Gulam Rasool Lone Vs. J&K State and Ors.” 2009 15 SCC 321 has reiterated the principles that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature. It was further observed that for sufficient and cogent reasons, the Court may in a given case refuse to exercise its jurisdiction, delay and laches being one of them. 09. In the present case, as already stated, the petitioner has approached this Court after more than four years of coming to know about the impugned consideration order and she has not tendered any explanation much less satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court belatedly. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its discretion of entertaining the present writ petition as the petitioner has acquiesced in the impugned action of the respondents. . WP(C) No. 594/2026 CM No. 1381/2026 WP(C) No. 594/2026 Page 7 of 7 10. For what has been discussed herein before, the present writ petition is without any merit. The same is dismissed, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 10.03.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes