Mahreen Javid vs SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT on 30 October 2026

O R D E R

This is an Original Application filed by the applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- “i. So as to quash and set aside the impugned orders bearing No. 865-DSEJ of 2023 dated 24.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 and Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 dated 01.03.2023 passed by the respondent No. 4, as the same have been passed in an illegal, arbitrary manner and with non-application of mind, as such, the orders impugned are required to be quashed and set aside qua the applicant being unsustainable under law; ii. To command and direct the respondents to allow the applicant to carry out her duties at her present place of posting i.e. GGHSS Bazar Qasaban Jammu on marriage grounds, as the marriage of the applicant is still existing, as such, she may kindly be allowed to continue at GGHSS Bazar Qasaban in the interest of justice and fair play; iii. The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly award such other relief(s) as may be considered appropriate in the circumstances of the present case; iv. Cost of the case may also be awarded.”

2. The applicant is seeking quashing of Order No. 865-DSEJ of 2023 dated 24.02.2023, passed by respondent No. 2, and Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 dated 01.03.2023, passed by respondent No. 4. By virtue of the aforesaid orders, the applicant’s representation dated 23.12.2019, seeking extension of her posting in District Jammu on marriage grounds, came to be rejected and she was directed to report to her original place of posting at GPS Chamba, Zone Ramban.

3. The principal grievance of the applicant is that, having been regularised as a General Line Teacher after rendering the prescribed period of service as a Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) teacher, she cannot be

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

subjected to discriminatory treatment in matters of service conditions, including transfer, merely on account of her initial mode of recruitment. The applicant further contends that the impugned orders have been passed arbitrarily, without proper application of mind and without due regard to the judicial pronouncements governing the service conditions of regularised ReT teachers.

4. The applicant has placed particular reliance upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023 and connected matters, wherein the legality of restrictions imposed upon regularised ReT teachers in matters of transfer was examined.

5. The applicant states that she was initially engaged as a ReT teacher vide Order No. ZEO/R/1009-15 dated 24.05.2004, issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Ramban. Upon completion of the prescribed period of service, she was regularised as a General Line Teacher vide Order No. ZEO/R/SSA 769-73 dated 09.01.2010. Subsequently, she was appointed as Teacher Grade-II vide Order No. 558 CEOR of 2019 dated 01.03.2019.

6. It is further stated that, on account of her marriage, the applicant was transferred from her original place of posting at GPS Chandrog, District Ramban, to District Jammu vide Government Order No. 1033- Edu of 2017 dated 21.12.2017. Pursuant thereto, she was serving at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, District Jammu.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

7. The applicant submitted a representation dated 23.12.2019 seeking extension of her posting in District Jammu. As the representation remained undecided, she approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by filing WP(C) No. 149/2020, titled Mahreen Javid v. UT of J&K and Ors. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2020, directing the respondents to consider the pending representation and decide the same within the stipulated period. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide communication No. DSEJ/NG/Tr/596/25299 dated 11.02.2020, took up the matter with respondent No. 1.

8. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 issued communication No. Edu-RET/1/2022-01 dated 25.07.2022, directing the repatriation of Teacher Grade-II/III and other specified categories of teachers to their original places of posting. In pursuance thereof, the applicant was relieved from Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu, vide order dated 27.07.2022.

9. The applicant challenged the aforesaid communication and relieving order before this Tribunal in OA No. 1029/2022. Vide interim order dated 22.08.2022, the respondents were restrained from implementing the said orders insofar as the applicant was concerned. The interim protection was subsequently extended vide order dated 22.11.2022, as stated in the pleadings.

10. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued Order No. 865-DSEJ of 2023 dated 24.02.2023, rejecting the applicant’s representation dated

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

23.12.2019 and directing her to report to her original place of posting at GPS Chamba, Zone Ramban. Consequentially, respondent No. 4 issued Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 dated 01.03.2023, relieving the applicant from Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu.

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicant has instituted the present Original Application, seeking their quashing and a direction to the respondents to permit her to continue at her present place of posting on marriage grounds.

12. The applicant has challenged the impugned orders on the ground that, upon her regularisation as a General Line Teacher, she became a member of the regular service cadre and her service conditions became governed by the applicable service rules. It is contended that she cannot be treated differently from other General Line Teachers merely because she was initially engaged under the ReT Scheme.

13. The applicant further contends that respondent No. 2 was not competent to decide her representation, particularly when the matter had earlier been taken up with respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 11.02.2020. According to the applicant, the representation sought extension of her posting at Jammu on marriage grounds, whereas the impugned order went beyond the scope of consideration by directing her repatriation to her original place of posting.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

14. The applicant has further pleaded that her marriage-related circumstances continue to subsist. Her husband is a Government employee serving in District Poonch, and she has two school-going minor children requiring her care. She submits that the applicable transfer policy contemplates, to the extent possible, the posting of married female employees with young children at places from which they can return home after duty. On these grounds, the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned orders and continuation at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu.

15. While considering the matter, this Tribunal passed an interim order dated 03.03.2023. The order records the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant that the impugned orders dated 24.02.2023 and 01.03.2023 had been passed by taking up the pending representation dated 23.12.2019 and that the resultant action was contrary to the legal position governing regularised ReT teachers.

16. After issuing notices to the respondents to show cause why the Original Application should not be admitted for hearing, the Tribunal directed that the operation of the impugned orders dated 24.02.2023 and 01.03.2023, insofar as they pertained to the applicant, shall remain stayed. Consequently, the applicant was directed to be permitted to work at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu, till the next date of hearing. The aforesaid interim order preserved the applicant’s existing position pending adjudication of the controversy.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

17. The applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 161 of 2023, titled Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., along with connected Original Applications and Transferred Applications. In the said judgment, this Tribunal examined the legality of Clause 3(a) of Government Order No. 20-Edu of 2019 dated 22.01.2019, the communication dated 25.07.2022 directing repatriation of specified categories of teachers to their original places of posting, and the relevant restrictive provisions contained in the subsequent transfer policy and notification. The principal question considered was whether teachers initially engaged as ReT teachers, but subsequently regularised as General Line Teachers, could be treated as a separate class for purposes of service conditions, including transfers, solely on the basis of their initial mode of recruitment.

18. After considering the relevant service rules, the constitutional principles of equality and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal held that once ReT teachers had been regularised as General Line Teachers and had become members of the relevant service cadre, their initial mode of recruitment could not, by itself, furnish a lawful basis for discriminatory treatment in matters of service conditions.

19. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the principles enunciated in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, AIR 1952 SC 75, and Union of India v. Atul Shukla, AIR 2015 SC 1777, concerning the requirements of a valid classification under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

India. It also considered the earlier judgments in Jyoti Gupta v. State of J&K and Others, decided on 18.05.2010, and Majid Alyas v. State of J&K and Others, decided on 09.11.2016.

20. The Tribunal held that the legal position declared by the competent judicial forums could not be rendered ineffective by executive instructions imposing discriminatory restrictions upon regularised General Line Teachers. Consequently, the specified restrictive provisions and the communication dated 25.07.2022 were quashed, and the respondents were directed to treat the applicants at par with other General Line Teachers in their respective district cadres for all purposes, including transfers.

21. The aforesaid judgment directly addresses the legal issue concerning the treatment of regularised ReT teachers and the restrictions imposed upon their transfers on account of their initial mode of recruitment. The controversy raised in the present OA is, therefore, required to be examined in the light of the principles laid down therein.

Analysis:-

22. We have considered the pleadings of the applicant, the impugned orders, the interim order dated 03.03.2023 and the judgment passed by this Tribunal in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023 and connected matters.

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

23. The principal issue requiring determination is whether the impugned orders directing the applicant’s repatriation to her original place of posting can be sustained in the light of the legal position declared in Jyoti Gupta.

24. The applicant asserts that she was initially engaged as a ReT teacher in 2004 and was regularised as a General Line Teacher in 2010. Her subsequent regularisation is material to the determination of her service rights. The ReT Scheme, as originally introduced vide Government

Order

No. 396-Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000, contemplated the engagement of teachers in schools within the area of their location and their subsequent regularisation as General Line Teachers after completion of the prescribed period of service, subject to the applicable conditions.

25. The legal effect of regularisation was considered in Jyoti Gupta. This Tribunal held that employees who had become members of the regular service cadre could not be subjected to a separate and discriminatory regime concerning service conditions merely because of their initial mode of recruitment. Once regularised as General Line Teachers, their service conditions were required to be determined in accordance with the applicable service rules, and their initial engagement as ReT teachers could not, by itself, justify restrictions inconsistent with those rules.

26. The same principle applies to the applicant’s claim. Her service rights after regularisation must be determined in accordance with the

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

rules applicable to the cadre to which she belongs. Her initial engagement under the ReT Scheme cannot, by itself, justify the imposition of restrictions inconsistent with the applicable service rules and the legal principles laid down in Jyoti Gupta.

27. The judgment in Jyoti Gupta specifically examined the legality of restrictions imposed upon regularised ReT teachers and the direction for their repatriation to the schools where they had initially served. The communication dated 25.07.2022, which formed the basis of the repatriation action challenged in the present proceedings, was itself considered and quashed by this Tribunal in that judgment. The Tribunal held that regularised General Line Teachers could not be treated as a separate class for purposes of transfer merely because they had initially entered service under the ReT Scheme.

28. The impugned orders in the present case were issued against the same factual and legal background. The applicant was directed to return to her original place of posting following rejection of her representation seeking extension of her posting at Jammu. Her claim raises the question whether the respondents could rely upon her original place of engagement under the ReT Scheme as a sufficient basis for repatriation despite her subsequent regularisation as a General Line Teacher.

29. In view of the ratio laid down in Jyoti Gupta, the applicant’s regularisation to the relevant service cadre cannot be disregarded. To the extent that the impugned orders proceed upon the premise that her

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

initial engagement as a ReT teacher, by itself, requires her return to the school of her original engagement, such action cannot be sustained without reference to the applicable service rules and the legal principles laid down by this Tribunal. The respondents are required to recognise the applicant’s service status and consider her case in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.

30. In Jyoti Gupta, this Tribunal applied these principles to the classification of regularised ReT teachers and other General Line Teachers. It held that once employees had become members of the same service cadre, their initial mode of recruitment could not, by itself, justify differential treatment in respect of service conditions. The applicant’s service rights must accordingly be determined in accordance with the applicable service rules, and a restriction founded solely upon her initial engagement under the ReT Scheme cannot be sustained where it conflicts with the legal position declared in Jyoti Gupta.

31. The applicant has also asserted that her husband is a Government employee serving in District Poonch and that she has two school-going minor children requiring her care. She relies upon the provision in the applicable transfer policy concerning the posting of married female employees with young children, to the extent possible, at places from which they can return home after duty. These circumstances are relevant to her request for extension of posting at Jammu. However, the claim to equal treatment as a General Line

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

Teacher and the request for continuation at a particular station on marriage grounds are distinct questions.

32. The judgment in Jyoti Gupta establishes that regularised ReT teachers cannot be subjected to discriminatory restrictions on transfers merely because of their initial mode of recruitment. It does not, by itself, create an unconditional right to remain posted at a particular station or to secure an inter-district posting irrespective of the applicable transfer rules. The applicant’s marriage-ground representation must, therefore, be considered in accordance with the applicable transfer policy, her service particulars, the relevant administrative requirements and the legal principles laid down in Jyoti Gupta. Her request cannot be rejected merely by treating her as a separate class on account of her initial engagement under the ReT Scheme.

Conclusion: -

33. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the legal issue concerning the treatment of regularised ReT teachers for purposes of transfer is covered by the principles laid down by this Tribunal in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023 and connected matters. The applicant asserts that she was initially engaged as a ReT teacher and was subsequently regularised as a General Line Teacher. Her service rights must, therefore, be considered in accordance with the rules applicable to the regularised cadre. She cannot be subjected to

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 13 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

discriminatory treatment merely because of her initial mode of recruitment.

34. The impugned orders dated 24.02.2023 and 01.03.2023, insofar as they direct the applicant’s repatriation without due regard to her subsequent regularisation and the legal principles declared in Jyoti Gupta, cannot be sustained. At the same time, the applicant’s request for continuation at Jammu on marriage grounds requires consideration under the applicable transfer policy and service rules. The judgment in Jyoti Gupta does not confer an absolute right to remain posted at a particular station, but it does require that the applicant’s claim be considered without applying a discriminatory restriction based solely upon her initial engagement under the ReT Scheme.

35. Consequently, the Original Application is allowed. Order No. 865- DSEJ of 2023 dated 24.02.2023 and consequential Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 dated 01.03.2023 are hereby set aside insofar as they direct the applicant’s repatriation on the basis of her initial engagement as a ReT teacher, without due regard to her subsequent regularisation as a General Line Teacher and the legal principles laid down in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023 and connected matters.

36. The respondents shall treat the applicant in accordance with the service rules applicable to regularised General Line Teachers and shall not subject her to differential treatment in matters of service conditions,

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 14 :: O.A. No. 61/233/2023

including transfers, merely on the basis of her initial mode of recruitment.

37. Respondents shall reconsider the applicant’s representation dated 23.12.2019 seeking extension of her posting at Jammu on marriage grounds. The representation shall be considered in the light of the applicable transfer policy, the applicant’s service particulars, her stated family circumstances and the legal principles laid down in Jyoti Gupta. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicated to the applicant.

38. Until the aforesaid decision is taken, the applicant shall be permitted to continue working at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu, in continuation of the interim protection granted vide order dated 03.03.2023.

39. There shall be no order as to costs.

40. All pending miscellaneous applications, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(DIWAKAR SINGH) Judicial Member RS Pathania Steno-D

PATHANIA

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA