Age relaxation claims for Special Educators are subject to Supreme Court-mandated screening and eligibility guidelines.

The seven applicants, seeking appointment as TGT (Special Education Teachers) under Post Code 20/22 (Advertisement No. 7/2022), challenged the respondents’ refusal to grant a 10-year age relaxation in the upper age limit for male candidates

The applicants argued that the denial was illegal and discriminatory

During the pendency of the application, the legal landscape regarding Special Educators was significantly influenced by ongoing litigation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 132/2016

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ candidature had not been considered primarily because they exceeded the prescribed age limit

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of a 10-year age relaxation for the post of TGT (Special Education Teacher) in light of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey

2. Whether the act of the respondents in denying age relaxation to male candidates is arbitrary and discriminatory

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Tribunal relied extensively on the evolving jurisprudence and specific interim directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 132/2016)

Supreme Court’s order dated 07.03.2025, which mandated the constitution of a "Screening Committee" to examine the eligibility of contractual teachers and explicitly authorized said Committee to "consider relaxation of the age limit in appropriate cases" for those with long-standing teaching experience

The court also referenced the "one school, one special education teacher" norm and the requirement for Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET) qualifications for certain classes as established in subsequent Supreme Court orders

The Tribunal observed that the core grievance—age relaxation for Special Education Teachers—is currently a subject of active supervision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

It noted that the Supreme Court had already established a mechanism via a Screening Committee (comprising the Disability Commissioner, Secretary of Education, and an RCI nominee) to evaluate the credentials of teachers and grant age relaxations where appropriate

Since the applicants were disqualified solely for being overage, the Tribunal reasoned that their cases fall squarely within the ambit of the Supreme Court’s directions regarding the regularisation and recruitment of special educators

The Tribunal emphasized that under the Supreme Court order dated 03.02.2026, no further appointments were to be made in the concerned selection process until the next date of hearing, effectively staying independent recruitment actions by the respondents

Consequently, the applicants' eligibility must be determined by the respondents in strict alignment with the ongoing judicial process at the apex level

The holding specifies that the applicants’ candidature shall be subject to merit, fulfillment of prescribed eligibility conditions (including RCI and TET requirements where applicable), and the final outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court

The Tribunal granted the applicants liberty to avail further legal remedies should they remain aggrieved by any subsequent adverse orders

No order as to costs was made