1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 9183  of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No 2035 of 2019)

Meena Sharma                   .... Appellant(s)

      Versus

State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors                  ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High

Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 31 December 2018.  The High Court

upheld a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 15 December 2014

setting aside the appointment of the appellant under a scheme called the

Rehbar-e-Taleem1 Scheme.  The learned Single Judge directed the State

to consider the case of the fifth respondent, for her appointment as an RET

in the Government Middle School, Bakore.   

3 The RET Scheme was notified by the State Government on 28 April

2000.  Some of the salient features of the Scheme are extracted from the

judgment of the High Court:

1 “RET”

2

"Sanction is accorded to launching of the Scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem  with the objective of:-‟

a/ Promoting  the  decentralized  management  of elementary  education  with  the  community participation and involvement.

b/     To  ensure  accountability  and  responsiveness through a strong backup and supervision through the community.

c/    To operationalize effectively the schooling system at the grass roots level.

The  scheme  shall  be  effectuated  for  provision  of services of Teaching guides called „Rehbar-e-Taleem‟ in  the  Primary  andMiddle  Schools  to  make  up  the deficiency of the staff as per the existent norms.

Concept of Rehbar-e-Taleem

The person to be provided to make up the deficiency of the staff at the elementary level of education will be designated  as  Rehbar-e-Taleem.  The  underlying objective is to posit the role of the teaching guide as catalyst for quality education and to ensure the overall development of the personality of the children. Drawn from the  local  community,  the  accountability  of  the teacher  called  as  „Rehbar-e-Taleem  would  be‟ immediate  providing  for  constant  interface  and interaction  with  the  community  to  secure  universal enrolment and to check the incidence of drop outs.

Role of Village Level Committee

Rehbar-e-Taleem (Teaching Guide) shall be engaged by  VLC  conceptualized  vide  Circular  order No.Edu/Plan-184/2000  dated  17.02.2000.  However, for the purpose of selection of Rehbar-e-Taleem, the composition  of  VLC  as  visualized  in  the  aforesaid Circular shall be modified to the extent of associating ZEO in place of Headmaster as the Convenor.

Xxxxxxxx

i/ VLC shall assess the requirement of teachers in the Primary/  Middle  Schools  within  the  area  of  their operation  in  due  regard  to  the  approved  norms  of staffing  and  the  Roll.  On  the  basis  of  the  said assessment, VLC would draw up a panel of eligible qualified persons from the village.

3

................…

Eligibility  i/ Rehbar-e-Taleem  should  be  the  permanent resident of the State. ii/ He or she should belong to the village where there  is  assessed  deficiency  of  staff.  On  the certification of VLC that no local candidate from within the village is available, VLC can draw up the panel from the adjoining village."

4 By  a  Government  Order  dated  24  August  2005,  the  expression

“village” was clarified thus:

"It is hereby clarified/ re-affirmed that the expression "Village"  used  in  the  instructions/  orders  aforesaid shall  mean,  and  shall  always  be  deemed  to  have meant, a Revenue Village."

5 The two villages in question in the present case are Chak Koura, to

which the appellant belongs and the village of Bakore, to which the fifth

respondent belongs.  Both these villages are situated on the international

border at a distance of four kilometers. There was no school in the village

of  Chak Koura to which the appellant  belongs.   An advertisement  was

issued  on  23  November  2001  by  the  Zonal  Education  Office  seeking

applications from local  candidates of  the villages where the educational

institution(s) were situated for engagement as RET teaching guides.  Two

posts were vacant, one each in the Middle School for Boys and Girls at

Bakore.   Fourteen  applications  were  received.  A panel  was  formed  in

which the first nine candidates belonged to village Bakore and the rest to

the  adjoining  village  of  Chak  Koura.   The  panel  was  submitted  to  the

Deputy  Commissioner  Jammu.  The residents  of  Chak Koura raised  an

objection on the ground that the persons belonging to the village of Bakore

4

were placed above them.  A meeting of the Village Education Committee2

was  held  on  15  December  2002.  A decision  was  taken  to  prepare  a

combined panel for the two villages in view of the topography of the two

adjacent villages and to furnish an opportunity to the educated youth of

village  Chak  Koura  in  which  there  was  no  school.   A Select  List  was

prepared in December 2002 including candidates of both the villages.  The

Select  List  consisted  of  fourteen  candidates  including  the  appellant  at

Serial No 1 and the fifth respondent at Serial No 7.   

6 In the meantime, a fresh notification was issued on 19 July 2003 for

inviting applications.  In July 2003, the appellant instituted a Writ Petition3

before  the  High  Court  challenging  the  fresh  notification.   On  7  August

2003, appointment orders were issued to two candidates, both of whom

were residents of village Chak Koura in accordance with their position in

the Select List.  The High Court adjudicated on the Writ Petition filed by the

appellant  on  9  September  2003  by  directing  the  authorities  to  make

appointments  on  the  basis  of  the  panel  of  recommended  candidates

“subject to verification of habitation”.   

7 The  appellant  filed  a  contempt  petition  for  non-compliance  of  the

directions. Faced  with  the  Contempt  Petition,  the  Director  of  School

Education,  Jammu  granted  approval  on  21  November  2007  to  the

engagement of the appellant as an RET teacher in the Middle School at

Bakore  against  an  available  vacancy.   The  Contempt  Petition  was

disposed  of  on  22  November  2007.   The  order  of  appointment  was

2 “VEC” 3 SWP 84 of 2003

5

communicated to the appellant on 3 December 2007.

8 In 2009,  the fifth  respondent  filed  a Writ  Petition4 before the High

Court.  The appellant was not impleaded as a party to the Petition.  The

averments contained in paragraph 12 of the Writ Petition, would indicate

that  the fifth  respondent  was aware of  the Select  List  which had been

drawn up for appointment to the post of RET.  The Select List was, in fact,

annexed as Annexure A4 to the Writ Petition.  Paragraph 12 of the Writ

Petition read as follows:

“12. That out of the panel prepared by respondents which is annexed as Annexure A4, the candidates falling at serial no.2 and 3 have resigned being the persons belonging to another village.   Serial  no.5  Kiran  Kumar  was  engaged  from  that panel being a resident of village Bakore.  Candidate at serial no.6 Puja Sharma refused to join and the candidate at serial no.12 Santosh Kumari was married and is engaged in her in- laws village and the petitioner stands at serial no.13 of that panel and in case the candidates belonging to village Chak Koura are excluded from the panel, the petitioner stands at serial  no.2 of  the last panel and there are 3 posts of  RET teachers still vacant in middle school Bakore.  It is pertinent to mention here that only one candidate from the last panel was engaged  and  rest  of  the  panel  was  not  executed  by  the respondent authorities.”

9 Annexure A4 was the Select List containing the panel of candidates

for engagement as RET guides in village Bakore.  It needs to be noted at

this stage that initially on 7 August 2003, the candidates at Serial Nos 2

and 3 of the Select List had been appointed. They resigned in September

2007.  The name of the appellant was shown at Serial No 5 of the Select

List  while  the  fifth  respondent  was  shown  at  Serial  No  14.   The  fifth

respondent did not implead the appellant as a party to the proceedings

which were instituted in  2009 and instead,  chose to implead two other

4 SWP 577 of 2009

6

candidates, Sunita Rajput and Samita Rani, who were placed below the

appellant at Serial Nos 9 and 10 of the Select List.   

10 In January 2011, the fifth respondent instituted a second Writ Petition5

challenging the order dated 3 December 2007 appointing the appellant as

an RET teaching guide.

11 On the completion of five years’ engagement as an RET teacher, the

appellant was regularized as a general line teacher on 14 January 2013.

The  appellant  was  transferred  from Bakore  on  24  July  2014  after  her

regularization.   

12 A Writ  Petition6 filed  by  the  appellant  seeking  benefits  under  her

appointment as a regular teacher was allowed by the High Court on 1 July

2013,  following  which  the  State  Government  issued  instructions  on  28

August  2014  to  implement  the  judgment.   The  regularization  of  the

appellant  was  given  effect  to  with  effect  from 10  September  2008  on

completing the initial period of five years as RET teaching guide.

13 The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the fifth respondent

by a judgment dated 15 December 2014 and quashed the appointment of

the  appellant  as  an  RET  Teacher.   The  Letters  Patent  Appeal  was

dismissed by the Division Bench on 31 December 2018.

14 Mr Gourab Banerji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, submitted that the fifth respondent had raised no objection to the

5 SWP 9 of 2011 6 SWP 93 of 2009

7

initial  appointment  of  two  candidates  to  the  post  of  RET  teacher  in

accordance with their position in the Select List, though they belonged to

village Chak Koura.  According to the submission,  the villages of  Chak

Koura  and  Bakore  are  adjacent  to  each  other  without  any  effective

separation in terms of distance. Hence a decision was taken by the VEC to

have a combined Select List for the candidates from both the villages since

the village Chak Koura did not have a school of its own.  It was urged that

when  the  first  Writ  Petition  was  filed  in  2009,  the  appellant  was  not

impleaded  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  Annexure  A4  to  the  Writ  Petition

indicated the position of the appellant in the Select List.   It was only in

2011, nearly four years after the initial appointment of the appellant, that a

second Writ Petition was filed in order to challenge the appointment.  Thus,

on merits, it was urged that there was no breach of the RET Scheme in

considering persons belonging to village Chak Koura.  Moreover, it was

submitted that  there  was  an unexplained delay  on the part  of  the  fifth

respondent in challenging the appointment of the appellant.  The appellant

was regularized in 2013.  She is stated to be 56 years of age with about

four years left to attain the age of superannuation.  Moreover, it was urged

that, at this stage, quashing the appointment of the appellant would be of

no  benefit  to  the  fifth  respondent.   The  fifth  respondent  cannot  seek

appointment on the basis of a Select List which was drawn up in 2003,

nearly sixteen years having elapsed in the meantime.  

8

15 On the other hand, Mr Navyug Sethi, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the fifth respondent, supported the judgment of the High Court,

contending that the condition of eligibility in the RET Scheme was that the

candidate must belong to the village where the school is situated.  This

was clarified in a Government Order dated 24 August 2005.  The learned

counsel submitted that though the appellant did not belong to the revenue

village where the school was situated, she was appointed following the first

order  of  the  High  Court  in  her  Writ  Petition  only  against  the  threat  of

coercive action in a Contempt Petition.  Learned counsel submitted that

the order passed by the High Court envisaged a verification of the place of

habitation and if such a verification had been done, it would have revealed

that the appellant was not a resident of  the revenue village concerned.

Hence, placing reliance on the principles which have been enunciated by

the High Court, it was urged that it was the fifth respondent, who belonged

to the village Bakore, and not the appellant, who was entitled to the post.

On  the  aspect  of  delay,  learned  counsel  submitted  that  when  the  fifth

respondent instituted the first Writ Petition in 2009, it was unknown to her

that the appellant had been appointed.  Consequently, it was only in 2011,

after a counter affidavit was filed by the State in the earlier Writ Petition

clarifying that the appellant had been appointed in the meantime, that the

second Writ Petition was instituted by the fifth respondent before the High

Court.  Hence, it was urged that there was no delay on the part of the fifth

respondent.  Learned counsel submitted that upon the invalidation of the

appointment of the appellant, the fifth respondent is entitled to the post and

a direction should accordingly be issued to that effect.

9

16 We have also heard Mr G M Kawoosa, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State.

17 In assessing the rival  submissions,  the central  aspect  of  the case

which  needs  to  be  emphasised  is  that  after  the  appointment  of  the

appellant on 3 December 2007, the first challenge to her appointment was

four years later in the Writ Petition of 2011.  The fifth respondent filed a

Writ Petition earlier in 2009, but chose not to implead the appellant or to

challenge her appointment.  Though the fifth respondent claims that she

was unaware of the appointment of the appellant, this explanation cannot

be accepted for the reason that the Select List was annexed at Annexure

A4 to the first Writ Petition.  A diligent enquiry would have revealed that the

appellant  had  been  appointed  in  the  meantime.   The  appellant  was

appointed  after  the  first  two  candidates  who  had  been  appointed  as

teaching guides under the RET Scheme resigned from the position.  The

four  year  delay  on  the  part  of  the  fifth  respondent  in  contesting  the

appointment of the appellant, disentitled her to claim any relief.    

18 Apart from this, the appellant was regularized in service in 2013 before

the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that she was not eligible

for  appointment  on  the  ground  that  she  did  not  belong  to  the  revenue

village.  The VEC took a bona fide decision to draw up a combined list for

the  two  villages  because  Chak  Koura  had  no  school.  Moreover,  the

challenge to the appointment of the appellant will not be of any benefit to

the  fifth  respondent.  The  fifth  respondent  cannot  claim  a  right  of

appointment on the basis of a Select List of 2003 after a lapse of sixteen

10

years.  The Select List cannot have any indefinite life so as to be operated

at an uncertain future date.  In any event, we are of the view that if a bona

fide decision was taken by the government to approve the appointment of

the  appellant  following  the  decision  of  the  High  Court,  this  cannot  be

faulted.  In  deciding  as  to  whether  a  fit  and proper  case was  made out

before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, an important

consideration is the proximity of the two villages and the fact that there was

no school in village Chak Koura to which the appellant belonged.  It is also

significant to note that the initial appointments of the candidates were also

of persons belonging to the village of Chak Koura.

19 For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the Writ

Petition  which  was  filed  by  the  fifth  respondent  suffered  from  an

unexplained delay.  Even on merits the appointment of the appellant is not

vitiated. In the meantime, equities have ensued in favour of the appellant

who has been regularized in service and has continued after regularization

for nearly  six years.   The fifth  respondent cannot at  this stage claim a

vested right to appointment on the basis of the Select List of 2003.

20 Accordingly,  we  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the  impugned

judgment     and   order   of   the  High  Court dated 31 December 2018.  In

11

consequence, the Writ  Petitions filed by the fifth respondent shall  stand

dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Ajay Rastogi]

 New Delhi;  December 03, 2019