“The court pointed out that the single bench appeared to have been greatly swayed by extension of certain welfare provisions to the ReTs from time to time and erroneously concluded that the government itself had been treating the ReTs on a par with the General Line Teachers.” This long sentence formed an integral part of the very recent judgment by the High Court of J&K and Ladakh in a case related to Reheber-i- Taleem (ReT) teaching officials and “General Line Teachers” ( GLTs for short). It is crystal clear from the wording of the sentence that ReTs cannot be treated at par with the GLTs.
Who are ReTs? Appointed under the scheme launched way back in 2000 in the then Jammu and Kashmir state, ReTs are legal citizens of J&K and their engagement/appointment as teaching guides under the provision has legal, moral and constitutional backing: successive governments would approve their selection through a set procedure informed by political acumen and administrative expertise in the then state’s political and social context. Calling into question the qualification of every ReT is purely an assumption. And amounts to stereotyping this predominant section of officials carrying out teaching at stagnant ‘postings’ since their induction in the School Education Department, Jammu and Kashmir.
Also it unfortunately is akin to questioning the selection process of ReTs backed by the official due process. This we can little afford. Respecting the government and trusting it is every citizen’s bounden duty unless otherwise established through a foolproof evidence.
Most importantly presuming that ReTs are not at par with GLTs ends up raising a question mark over the institutions from where an ReT candidate has received education across J&K. Even most GLTs have studied at these institutions. Moreover, it is unproven and lacking in evidence that GLTs are ahead of ReTs on the ground in any manner. Where do exist the facts and evidence to support the perception that ReTs are educationally inferior?
Infact, most ReTs outperform GLTs. If not, then how come an ReT appointee is asked to teach at the secondary and higher secondary level for years together? If not, then how come ReTs have always been preferred to work as Zonal and district resource persons? If not, then how come many Rets have recently been elevated as masters and lecturers?
I have no quarrel with the argument that a certain number of ReTs could have found their way into the system undeservedly. That, however, in no way implies that all ReTs were/are not competent for the teaching profession. Had that been the case, no ReT would have been legally appointed as a General Line Teacher after the initial five-year sincere service (which was done based the five-year performance) and no formal order in this regard would have been issued by the directorate of school education, an institution reputed for its integrity, work culture and efficiency.
Notably, it is hard to believe that all GLTs — 95% of whom prefer working at the secondary level with sublime facilities– are above par and that their performance in the field is sacrosanct. The board results of the 10th standard of every academic year furnish an ample proof. Also, factual findings by an impartial agency from ground zero can well bring to light the realities.
Remarkably, most ReTs were graduates, trained graduates and/ or post graduates from the famed educational institutions of the country, on their selection time. That is evidenced by their testimonials and the official records available with the department of education. Several committees were framed on different occasions to probe the educational credentials of ReTs and no committee as of today has come up with a disappointing report to that end.
While the constitution firmly stands for equal rights and against discrimination, the court and the government for that matter must act to acknowledge ReT officials ‘ struggles and positive actions irrespective of their voice and position in society. Treating all teaching officials equally is a key to unite them and to infuse a new lease of life into school climate.
True, there are weak links among both the categories, ReTs and GLTs, but that should not be equated to treating ReTs not at par. This stereotyping blinds us to recognising an individual ReT’s worth and her/his unique qualities. Selecting ReTs at the village/zonal level was the government’s well thought out policy decision; not of an ReT.
What is praiseworthy is that these teaching officials, ReTs –99% of whom work at elementary schools– time and again do receive official directives to work at the secondary and higher secondary schools. That they faithfully carry out. No one objects then. But regretfully these officials are not transferred along with their posts on the premise that there is no such provision and that their services are ‘ school specific ‘.
In the larger interests of the society, ReTs ‘ transfer is a must-have measure. That will raise the standard of teaching -learning activity: demotivation and boredom will disappear.
ReTs and GLTs belong to the same Union Territory, work for the same UT and receive salaries from the same UT? If the transfer of ReTs is permitted, the dearth of teachers at schools will be eliminated. Plus, GLTs too will find an opportunity to work at the elementary level; it is here that their efficiency can find a better outlet.
Several ReTs successfully got selected as GLTs during their service period. While a section of them joined the new postings, most decided against it in the hope that they might lose the service years they had already worked for. Very unhappy are they with the decision now.
Ours is a welfare state. Counting the initial service period of ReTs and making their services transferable — is their welfare. 90% of these teaching officials have been serving this society across the UT with dedication; it is in bad taste that the same same society holds them in its bad books unjustifiably instead of appreciating them for working on a meager honorarium, Rs 1500 – 2000, for the initial five years.
A wide perception among certain quarters is that all ReT appointees, a predominant category of teaching officials, are incompetent and not at par with GLTs. This is unfounded. No evidence and no survey exist to substantiate the claim. We should not indulge in discrimination in any manner.
Prejudice, stereotyping and assumptions are irrelevant and have no place in a civilized society. Let us contribute our bit to social progress and national development. Good teaching is sustainable only by motivated, dedicated, courageous and positive attitude. All this is possible when all categories of teachers are treated equally with all employee benefits extended to all of them. Anything less can hit the academic progress badly.
(Author is teacher by profession and RK columnist. Feedback: [email protected])
