Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Teacher Under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme: Meena Sharma vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 9183

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Ajay Rastogi, J

Can a delay in challenging an appointment under a government scheme be a valid reason to dismiss a petition? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir. This case highlights the importance of timely action in legal matters, especially when it involves appointments made under government schemes. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to decide whether the appointment of a teacher under the RET scheme was valid, considering the delay in challenging the appointment and the specific circumstances of the case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of Meena Sharma (the appellant) as a teacher under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme in Jammu and Kashmir. The RET Scheme was launched on 28 April 2000, to address the deficiency of staff in primary and middle schools by engaging local teaching guides. The scheme emphasized community participation and accountability. The key eligibility criteria included being a permanent resident of the state and belonging to the village where the staff deficiency was assessed. A clarification issued on 24 August 2005, defined “village” as a “Revenue Village.”

In this case, two villages, Chak Koura (where the appellant belongs) and Bakore (where the fifth respondent belongs), were involved. There was no school in Chak Koura. An advertisement was issued on 23 November 2001, for filling two RET teacher posts in the Middle School at Bakore. A panel of candidates was formed, initially favoring residents of Bakore. However, due to objections from residents of Chak Koura, a combined panel was created in December 2002, including candidates from both villages. Meena Sharma was placed at Serial No. 1 and the fifth respondent was at Serial No. 7.

A fresh notification was issued on 19 July 2003, which was challenged by the appellant. On 7 August 2003, two candidates from Chak Koura were appointed based on their position in the combined list. The High Court directed appointments based on the panel, subject to verification of habitation. After the initial appointees resigned in September 2007, Meena Sharma was appointed on 3 December 2007, following a contempt petition. The fifth respondent filed a writ petition in 2009, without impleading Meena Sharma, and another in 2011, challenging Meena Sharma’s appointment.

Meena Sharma was regularized as a general line teacher on 14 January 2013, after completing five years of service. The High Court, however, quashed her appointment on 15 December 2014, which was upheld by the Division Bench on 31 December 2018. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially directed the authorities to make appointments based on the panel of recommended candidates, subject to verification of habitation. After the initial appointees resigned, Meena Sharma was appointed following a contempt petition. Subsequently, the fifth respondent filed two writ petitions. The first writ petition was filed in 2009 without impleading Meena Sharma. The second writ petition was filed in 2011 challenging the appointment of Meena Sharma. The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the fifth respondent and quashed the appointment of the appellant on 15 December 2014. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 31 December 2018. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme, launched on 28 April 2000, aimed to promote decentralized management of elementary education with community participation. The scheme sought to engage local teaching guides to address staff deficiencies in primary and middle schools. The scheme stipulated that 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 objective was to position the teaching guide as a catalyst for quality education and to ensure the overall development of children. The teaching guide was to be drawn from the local community, ensuring accountability and interaction with the community to secure universal enrolment and check dropouts.

The scheme also outlined the role of the Village Level Committee (VLC), which was responsible for engaging the Rehbar-e-Taleem. The VLC was to assess the requirement of teachers in the Primary/Middle Schools within their area of operation, considering the approved norms of staffing and the roll. Based on this assessment, the VLC would draw up a panel of eligible qualified persons from the village. The eligibility criteria for a Rehbar-e-Taleem included being a permanent resident of the State and belonging to the village where there was an assessed deficiency of staff. A clarification issued on 24 August 2005, stated that the term “village” would mean a “Revenue Village.”

The relevant provisions from the scheme, as extracted from the judgment, are:

• “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 and Middle Schools to make up the deficiency of the staff as per the existent norms.”
• “Rehbar-e-Taleem should be the permanent resident of the State.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Meena Sharma):

• The appellant argued that the fifth respondent had not objected to the initial appointment of two candidates from Chak Koura, even though they did not belong to the revenue village of Bakore.
• The villages of Chak Koura and Bakore are adjacent, with no effective separation. The Village Education Committee (VEC) had taken a decision to have a combined select list for both villages, as Chak Koura did not have a school.
• The appellant was not impleaded in the first Writ Petition filed in 2009, despite the Select List (Annexure A4) indicating her position.
• There was an unexplained delay of four years in challenging the appellant’s appointment.
• The appellant was regularized in 2013, and quashing her appointment at this stage would not benefit the fifth respondent.
• The Select List of 2003 cannot be used to claim appointment after sixteen years.

Arguments on behalf of the Fifth Respondent:

• The fifth respondent contended that the RET Scheme required candidates to belong to the village where the school is situated, as clarified by the Government Order of 24 August 2005.
• The appellant did not belong to the revenue village where the school was situated.
• The appellant’s appointment was a result of a contempt petition and not based on merit.
• The High Court’s order required verification of habitation, which would have revealed that the appellant was not a resident of the revenue village.
• The fifth respondent was unaware of the appellant’s appointment when the first Writ Petition was filed in 2009. The second Writ Petition was filed in 2011 after the State clarified that the appellant had been appointed.
• Upon invalidation of the appellant’s appointment, the fifth respondent is entitled to the post.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The State supported the decision of the VEC to have a combined list.
• The state contended that the appointment of the appellant was valid.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the appointment of the appellant was valid under the RET Scheme, considering she did not belong to the revenue village where the school was located.
2. Whether the delay of four years in challenging the appellant’s appointment was a valid ground to dismiss the fifth respondent’s petition.
3. Whether the regularization of the appellant in 2013 and the lapse of time since the 2003 Select List should be considered.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any previous cases or books in its judgment. The judgment primarily focused on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, along with the relevant provisions of the Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme and the clarification issued by the Government.

The Court considered the following legal provisions and government orders:

• Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme, launched on 28 April 2000: The scheme aimed to engage local teaching guides to address staff deficiencies in primary and middle schools. It emphasized community participation and accountability.
• Government Order dated 24 August 2005: Clarified that the expression “village” would mean a “Revenue Village.”

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Rehbar-e-Taleem (RET) Scheme was interpreted in light of the specific facts, particularly the absence of a school in Chak Koura.
• The Government Order of 24 August 2005, was considered, but the Court did not apply it strictly, given the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the fifth respondent’s writ petition suffered from an unexplained delay and that the appointment of the appellant was not vitiated. The Court also noted that equities had ensued in favor of the appellant, who had been regularized in service. The Court emphasized that the fifth respondent could not claim a vested right to appointment based on the 2003 Select List.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, which can be categorized into the following:

• Delay in Challenging the Appointment: The Court emphasized the four-year delay by the fifth respondent in challenging the appellant’s appointment. This delay was considered significant and detrimental to the fifth respondent’s case, as it indicated a lack of diligence.
• Bona Fide Decision of the VEC: The Court recognized that the Village Education Committee (VEC) had taken a bona fide decision to create a combined list for the two villages. This was because Chak Koura, where the appellant belonged, did not have its own school.
• Regularization of the Appellant: The fact that the appellant was regularized in 2013 was a crucial factor. This regularization created equities in favor of the appellant, and the Court was reluctant to disturb her settled position.
• Impracticality of the 2003 Select List: The Court noted that the Select List of 2003 could not be used to claim a right of appointment after a lapse of sixteen years. This highlighted the impracticality of relying on an old list for appointments.
• Proximity of the Two Villages: The close proximity of Chak Koura and Bakore was also considered by the Court. The fact that the villages were adjacent and that the initial appointments were also from Chak Koura, influenced the Court’s decision.
• No Benefit to the Fifth Respondent: The Court also noted that quashing the appointment of the appellant would not benefit the fifth respondent, as the select list could not be used after such a long period.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of the factual circumstances, the delay in challenging the appointment, and the equities that had developed in favor of the appellant. The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, considering both the letter of the law and the practical realities of the situation.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Timely Action: This case emphasizes the importance of promptly challenging appointments under government schemes. Delay can be a significant factor in dismissing a petition.
• Bona Fide Decisions: Decisions made by committees, like the VEC in this case, are given weight if they are deemed bona fide and based on reasonable considerations.
• Equities in Service Matters: Courts consider the equities that have developed in service matters, especially when an employee has been regularized and has served for a considerable period.
• Practicality of Select Lists: Select lists for appointments cannot have an indefinite life. They cannot be used to claim a right of appointment after a long lapse of time.
• Contextual Interpretation: Legal provisions and government orders must be interpreted in light of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the writ petitions filed by the fifth respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a significant and unexplained delay in challenging an appointment under a government scheme can be fatal to the case, especially when the appointee has been regularized and equities have arisen in their favor. The judgment also clarifies that select lists cannot have an indefinite life and cannot be relied upon for appointments after a long lapse of time. This case does not overrule any previous positions of law but reinforces the importance of timely action and the consideration of equities in service matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Meena Sharma vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors underscores the significance of timely legal action and the consideration of equities in service matters. The Court upheld the appointment of Meena Sharma, emphasizing that the delay in challenging her appointment was fatal to the fifth respondent’s case. The judgment also highlights that select lists for appointments cannot have an indefinite life and that decisions made by committees are given weight if they are deemed bona fide. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence in pursuing legal remedies and the need to consider the practical realities of each situation.