Pending Supreme Court proceedings on special educators' appointments mandate Screening Committee for age relaxation and eligibility verification; Tribunal disposes OA directing consideration per those orders, subject to merit and outcome.

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs:-

(i) To declare that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of age relaxation in terms of order dated 05.12.2019 and as such entitled to apply for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher), Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, Post Code 20/22 advertised through Advertisement No. 7/2022 dated 20.07 .2022.

(ii) To declare that the act of the respondents in not granting benefit of age relaxation of 10 years in upper age limit to male candidates for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher), Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, Post Code 20/22 advertised through Advertisement No. 7/2022 dated 20.07.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

(iii) Pass any such orders as the Court may deem fit in the light of above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The present matter pertains to appointment to the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD. It is noted that the issue of appointment to the said post is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2026, titled Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

3. We further draw reference to the decision rendered in a similar matter, i.e., O.A. No. 705 of 2026 dated 17.03.2026, wherein the following has been recorded:-

“By way of the present Original Application, the applicant seeks the following reliefs and interim reliefs:

“(a) Call for perusal before this Hon’ble Tribunal all files, records, and documents related to the contractual appointment of the Applicant on the post of Assistant Teacher of Special Schools dated 23.02.2010, as well as all files, records, and documents related to the extensions granted to the contractual appointment of the Applicant on the said post from time to time since 2010 till date.

(b) Allow the present OA and direct the Respondents to regularize the appointment of the Applicant with effect from 23.02.2010 on the post of Assistant Teacher of Special Schools.

(c) Direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant pursuant to the regularization of her appointment as Assistant Teacher of Special Schools with effect from 23.02.2010.

(d) Pass any other order(s) or grant any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just, proper, or appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

“9.1 That the Applicant was engaged on 23.02.2010 on a contractual basis by the Respondents as Assistant Teacher of Special Schools against a sanctioned and vacant post.

9.2 That the Respondents have extended the contractual appointment of the Applicant as Assistant Teacher of Special Schools from 23.02.2010 up to 31.03.2026 without any interruption.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present OA has been necessitated due to the arbitrary, discriminatory and exploitative denial of regularization despite the applicant having rendered continuous service for nearly 16 years as an Assistant Teacher against a duly sanctioned post after a fair and transparent selection process.

2.1. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is fully qualified, duly registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India, and has been repeatedly assessed as competent, thereby establishing that her appointment is not “illegal” but at best “irregular,” making her entitled to consideration for regularisation in terms of the law laid down in Secr