Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5046

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
SACHIN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION – Respondent
O.A. No.3064/2023|M.A. No. 3548/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manohar Naagar
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Amit Yadav

Tribunal defers relief on age relaxation claim for special education teacher posts, directing consideration per Supreme Court orders in pending writ mandating screening of contractual teachers with preference to eligible candidates.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - Age relaxation - Post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Special Education - Applicants seeking declaration of entitlement to 10 years upper age relaxation and challenge to denial of such relaxation to male candidates as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory - Matter pertaining to appointments under consideration before Supreme Court in pending writ petition with directions for constitution of Screening Committee to examine contractual teachers' credentials, grant preference to eligible contractual employees subject to merit, RCI qualification, TET where applicable, and age relaxation in appropriate cases - Tribunal holds issue sub judice, directs consideration of applicants' cases strictly in accordance with Supreme Court directions subject to merit and eligibility. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 8)

(B) Judicial restraint - Pendency of matter before Apex Court - Tribunal not to grant reliefs on claims premature during sub judice proceedings - Directions issued for case-by-case consideration by Screening Committee comprising State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Education Secretary, and RCI nominee - Preference to existing contractual teachers with continuous service, subject to verification of qualifications and performance. (Paras 6.1, 7.1, 8.1)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, aged about 33 and 35 years, challenge denial of 10 years age relaxation in upper age limit for male candidates applying to post of TGT Special Education Teacher advertised through Post Code 33/23, claiming entitlement thereto and discrimination in recruitment process by education department and selection board. Issue linked to ongoing Supreme Court proceedings on special educators' appointments directing screening of contractual teachers and fresh recruitments with specific restraints.

Findings of Court:
Applicants' cases to be considered by respondents in light of Supreme Court orders, including screening by constituted Committee, subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility, merit, and compliance with TET/RCI requirements. No further directions issued given pendency before Apex Court.

Issues: Entitlement to age relaxation for male candidates in special education teacher recruitment; validity of denial as discriminatory; impact of Supreme Court directions on fresh appointments vis-à-vis existing contractual teachers.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recruitment for special education posts is sub judice before Supreme Court with specific directions for preferential consideration of eligible contractual teachers via Screening Committee and restraints on new appointments, Tribunal disposes OA directing compliance with Apex Court orders on case-to-case basis, subject to merit, eligibility, and ongoing judicial process.

Result: Original Application and pending MA disposed of with directions to consider applicants' cases per Supreme Court orders; liberty to seek remedies if aggrieved. No costs.

Table of Content
1. permission granted for joint oa pursuit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. reliefs sought for age relaxation entitlement. (Para 4 , 5)
3. applicants' arguments for age relaxation denied discriminatorily. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) MA 3548/2023

1.The present MA is filed by the applicants seeking permission to pursue the OA jointly.

2. For the reasons stated therein, the MA is allowed. The applicants are permitted to pursue the OA jointly.

OA 3064/2023

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

“A. To declare that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of age relaxation of 10 years in upper age limit for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher), Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi, Post Code 33/23 advertised through Advertisement No. 02/2023 dated 31.07.2023.

B. 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 33/23 advertised through Advertisement No. 02/2023 dated 31.07.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

C. 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 TGT Special Education Teacher in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It is noted that the issue related to appointment of Special Education Teachers is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2016, 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 “irregul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5046

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALManish Garg, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)SACHIN KUMAR – AppellantVersusDIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION – RespondentO.A. No.3064/2023|M.A. No. 3548/2023

Tribunal defers relief on age relaxation claim for special education teacher posts, directing consideration per Supreme Court orders in pending writ mandating screening of contractual teachers with preference to eligible candidates.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
SACHIN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION – Respondent
O.A. No.3064/2023|M.A. No. 3548/2023