The court emphasized that contractual teachers must be considered for regularization in compliance with Supreme Court directions.

ORDER (ORAL)

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

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 Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi ( 2006 4 SCC 1 ), Jaggo vs. UOI & Ors. ( 2024 INSC 1034 ), Shripal & Anr vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad ( 2025 INSC 144 ), and Dharam Singh & Ors vs. State of U.P. & Anr ( 2025 INSC 998 ).

2.2. Learned counsel contends that the respondents have misapplied these precedents and ignored the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors vs. UOI & Ors. (order dated 07.03.2025), which support the case of similarly placed contractual teachers.

2.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argues that the rejection of the applicant’s representation is wholly untenable and contrary to judicial directions, reflecting non-application of mind. The continued denial of regular status, equal pay, and service benefits, despite identical duties and long tenure, violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, causing recurring financial loss and mental agony, thereby compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal seeking regularization and consequential benefits.

3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present Original Application is wholly misconceived and deserves dismissal, as the applicant continues to be engaged purely on a contractual basis and has no vested right to seek regular appointment.

3.1. Learned counsel emphasized that the applicant’s representation dated 11.09.2025 was duly examined and rejected by a reasoned order dated 17.12.2025 by the compet