Regularised ReT Teachers | Equal Transfer Rights Regardless of Initial Recruitment Mode : CAT Jammu

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has held that teachers initially engaged under the Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) scheme but subsequently regularised as General Line Teachers cannot be subjected to discriminatory transfer restrictions solely on account of their initial mode of recruitment. The Tribunal set aside repatriation orders that disregarded the applicant's regularised cadre status and directed reconsideration of her representation for extension of posting on marriage grounds in accordance with applicable service rules and the principles declared in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Mahreen Javid, a regularised General Line Teacher, challenged orders directing her repatriation from Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu, to her original place of posting at GPS Chamba, Zone Ramban. The respondents relied on her initial engagement as a ReT teacher to justify the repatriation, notwithstanding her subsequent regularisation and the legal position established by this Tribunal in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023.

Key Facts

• The applicant 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 service period, she was regularised as a General Line Teacher vide Order No. ZEO/R/SSA 769-73 dated 09.01.2010.
• She was subsequently appointed as Teacher Grade-II vide Order No. 558 CEOR of 2019 dated 01.03.2019.
• On account of her marriage, she was transferred from GPS Chandrog, District Ramban, to District Jammu vide Government Order No. 1033-Edu of 2017 dated 21.12.2017 and posted at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban.
• The applicant submitted a representation dated 23.12.2019 seeking extension of her posting in District Jammu on marriage grounds.
• Her husband is a government employee serving in District Poonch, and she has two school-going minor children.

Procedural History

• 21.01.2020: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir disposed of WP(C) No. 149/2020 (Mahreen Javid v. UT of J&K and Ors.), directing respondents to consider the pending representation and decide within a stipulated period.
• 11.02.2020: Respondent No. 2 (Director, School Education, Jammu) took up the matter with Respondent No. 1 (Principal Secretary, School Education Department) vide communication No. DSEJ/NG/Tr/596/25299.
• 25.07.2022: Respondent No. 1 issued communication No. Edu-RET/1/2022-01 directing repatriation of Teacher Grade-II/III and other specified categories to their original places of posting.
• 27.07.2022: Applicant relieved from Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, pursuant to the repatriation direction.
• 22.08.2022: Interim order in OA No. 1029/2022 restrained respondents from implementing the repatriation orders insofar as the applicant was concerned.
• 22.11.2022: Interim protection extended.
• 24.02.2023: Respondent No. 2 issued Order No. 865-DSEJ of 2023 rejecting the applicant's representation dated 23.12.2019 and directing her to report to GPS Chamba, Zone Ramban.
• 01.03.2023: Respondent No. 4 (Principal, GGHSS Bazar Qasaban) issued Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 relieving the applicant.
• 03.03.2023: Interim order in the present OA stayed the operation of the impugned orders and permitted the applicant to continue working at GGHSS Bazar Qasaban.
• 03.09.2026: Matter reserved for judgment.
• 30.10.2026: Judgment pronounced.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought: (i) quashing of Order No. 865-DSEJ of 2023 dated 24.02.2023 and Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 dated 01.03.2023; (ii) a direction to allow her to continue at GGHSS Bazar Qasaban on marriage grounds; (iii) costs.

The Legal Issue

Whether teachers regularised from the ReT cadre to the General Line Teacher cadre can be subjected to discriminatory transfer restrictions - specifically, mandatory repatriation to their original place of engagement - solely on the basis of their initial mode of recruitment, in disregard of their regularised service status and the applicable service rules.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The applicant contended that upon regularisation as a General Line Teacher, she became a member of the regular service cadre governed by the applicable service rules. She relied on the judgment in Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023, wherein this Tribunal held that regularised ReT teachers cannot be treated as a separate class for purposes of service conditions, including transfers, merely because of their initial mode of recruitment. She argued that the impugned orders proceeded on the erroneous premise that her initial ReT engagement required her return to the school of original engagement, ignoring her subsequent regularisation. She further submitted that Respondent No. 2 was not competent to decide her representation when the matter had earlier been referred to Respondent No. 1, and that the impugned order exceeded the scope of her representation by directing repatriation rather than merely deciding the extension request. Her marriage-ground circumstances - husband posted in Poonch, two minor children - and the transfer policy provision for posting married female employees with young children at convenient stations supported her claim.

For the Respondents

The respondents, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, defended the repatriation orders as consistent with the ReT scheme's original terms and the communication dated 25.07.2022. They maintained that the applicant's initial engagement under the ReT scheme, which contemplated service in schools within the area of location, justified the direction to return to her original posting. They contended that the representation for extension of posting was correctly rejected and that the applicant's service conditions remained governed by the ReT scheme's restrictive provisions.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal examined the ratio decidendi of Jyoti Gupta v. UT of J&K and Ors., OA No. 161 of 2023, which directly addressed the legality of restrictions imposed upon regularised ReT teachers. In Jyoti Gupta, the 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. The Tribunal relied on the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, citing 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. It also considered earlier judgments in Jyoti Gupta v. State of J&K and Others (decided 18.05.2010) and Majid Alyas v. State of J&K and Others (decided 09.11.2016).

"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."

The Tribunal found that the communication dated 25.07.2022, which formed the basis of the repatriation action challenged in the present proceedings, had itself been considered and quashed in Jyoti Gupta. The impugned orders dated 24.02.2023 and 01.03.2023 were issued against the same factual and legal background. The applicant's regularisation to the General Line Teacher cadre could not be disregarded. To the extent the impugned orders proceeded on the premise that her initial engagement as a ReT teacher, by itself, required her return to the school of original engagement, such action could not be sustained without reference to the applicable service rules and the legal principles laid down in Jyoti Gupta.

The Tribunal clarified that 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. Her marriage-ground representation must be considered in accordance with the applicable transfer policy, her service particulars, relevant administrative requirements, and the legal principles declared in Jyoti Gupta.

The Verdict

The Original Application was allowed. Order No. 865-DSEJ of 2023 dated 24.02.2023 and consequential Order No. GGHSS/BQ/506 dated 01.03.2023 were set aside insofar as they directed 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. The respondents were directed to: (i) treat the applicant in accordance with the service rules applicable to regularised General Line Teachers and not subject her to differential treatment in matters of service conditions, including transfers, merely on the basis of her initial mode of recruitment; (ii) reconsider the applicant's representation dated 23.12.2019 seeking extension of her posting at Jammu on marriage grounds, in light of the applicable transfer policy, her service particulars, stated family circumstances, and the principles in Jyoti Gupta; (iii) pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; (iv) permit the applicant to continue working at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bazar Qasaban, Jammu, until the aforesaid decision is taken, in continuation of the interim protection granted on 03.03.2023. No order as to costs was made.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Initial Recruitment Mode Cannot Justify Post-Regularisation Discrimination

The judgment reinforces the principle that once an employee is regularised into a regular service cadre, their service conditions - including transfer entitlements - must be governed by the rules applicable to that cadre. Executive instructions or policy provisions that impose a separate, restrictive regime on regularised employees solely because of their initial mode of recruitment violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Practitioners should invoke Jyoti Gupta and this judgment to challenge any transfer or posting order that treats regularised ReT teachers (or similarly situated regularised employees) as a distinct class for adverse treatment.

Repatriation Orders Based on Quashed Communications Are Unsustainable

The communication dated 25.07.2022, which directed repatriation of specified teacher categories to their original places of posting, was itself quashed in Jyoti Gupta. Any subsequent orders passed in pursuance of that communication - including the impugned orders here - lack legal foundation. Lawyers should verify whether the administrative instruction underlying a challenged order has already been struck down by a competent forum; if so, the derivative order falls with it.

Marriage-Ground Representations Require Independent Consideration Under Applicable Policy

While Jyoti Gupta and this judgment prohibit discriminatory restrictions, they do not create an unconditional right to a particular posting. The applicant's request for continuation at Jammu on marriage grounds must be decided afresh under the applicable transfer policy, considering her service particulars, family circumstances (husband's posting, minor children), and administrative exigencies. Practitioners should frame representations to squarely invoke the transfer policy's provisions for married female employees with young children, while simultaneously asserting the bar on discrimination based on initial recruitment mode.

Interim Protection Continues Pending Fresh Decision

The Tribunal's direction that the applicant continue at her current posting until the fresh decision is a practical safeguard against administrative delay. This ensures that the employee is not displaced during the reconsideration period. Lawyers seeking similar relief should request continuation of interim protection until a speaking order is passed on the representation.

• Actionable takeaway: When challenging a transfer/repatriation order against a regularised employee, first establish the regularisation order and cadre status, then demonstrate that the challenged order relies on a discriminatory classification (initial recruitment mode) that has been invalidated by binding precedent.
• Actionable takeaway: Always check whether the administrative circular or communication underlying the impugned order has been quashed in a prior judgment; if yes, the impugned order is ultra vires ab initio.
• Actionable takeaway: In marriage-ground transfer cases, file a comprehensive representation citing the specific transfer policy provision, family circumstances, and the constitutional bar on post-regularisation discrimination; if rejected, challenge the rejection as non-speaking or discriminatory.