Contractual special educators' regularization claims must strictly comply with Supreme Court-mandated screening procedures and eligibility standards.

The applicant was engaged as a Craft Instructor in Special Schools on a contractual basis starting March 3, 2010

She has rendered nearly 16 years of continuous service against a sanctioned post and is registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)

Her contractual appointment was periodically extended, most recently until March 31, 2026

Seeking regularization and consequential benefits from her initial date of appointment, the applicant filed a representation on September 11, 2025, which was rejected by the respondents via a reasoned order dated December 17, 2025

The respondents contended that the applicant has no vested right to regularization and that the matter regarding similarly situated contractual teachers is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Ors. v. Union of India Ors.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of her services as a Craft Instructor/Special Teacher based on her long-term contractual tenure

2. Whether the claim for regularization is maintainable during the pendency of comprehensive directions from the Supreme Court regarding special education teachers in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. UOI

The Tribunal relied on the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments

It primarily applied the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Ors. v. Union of India Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 132/2016), particularly the orders dated March 7, 2025, and February 3, 2026

These orders mandate the constitution of a three-member Screening Committee to examine the eligibility of contractual teachers based on RCI qualifications and the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), while allowing for age relaxation and considering past experience for those found competent

The Tribunal observed that the core of the dispute involves the status of contractual teachers imparting education to children with special needs, a matter currently under the active supervision of the Supreme Court

The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already directed the GNCTD to constitute a Screening Committee to evaluate 1,443 contractual Special Educators

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant’s role and service conditions fall within the ambit of the Rajneesh Kumar Pandey litigation, her claims for regularization and pay scales must be filtered through the mechanism established by the Apex Court

By aligning the applicant’s grievance with the Supreme Court’s "multipronged approach," the Tribunal ensured that her credentials (RCI and TET qualifications) would be assessed by the designated Screening Committee rather than adjudicated independently in a vacuum

It directed the respondents to consider the applicant’s case strictly in accordance with the merit, eligibility conditions, and specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey

The Tribunal held that if the applicant is aggrieved by any future adverse order passed after such consideration, she maintains the liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies, including approaching the Supreme Court

No costs were awarded