Contractual teachers’ services shall continue pending reasoned decisions on their regularization representations until 31 March 2027.

The 20 applicants were working as contractual Primary Teachers—Hindi or Urdu—with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), having been appointed between 2008 and 2013.

They claimed to have served for approximately 10–15 years against sanctioned posts after undergoing the prescribed selection process, but their services had not been regularised.

Relying on their appointment letters and earlier Tribunal orders, including the order in O.A. No. 3760/2025 dated 26 September 2025, the applicants submitted representations dated 1 April 2026 and reminders dated 6 April 2026 seeking regularisation.

The representations remained undecided.

During the hearing, the applicants sought protection against termination and maintenance of status quo, while the respondents opposed interim relief and stated that the applicants’ contractual engagements had been extended up to 31 March 2026.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations seeking regularisation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

Whether the applicants were entitled to interim protection against discontinuation of their services during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that representations affecting the employment rights of public servants must be considered and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

It also applied the principle that, at the admission stage, relief may be confined to consideration of a pending representation where the applicants consent to such limited relief and the respondents have no objection.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent concerning regularisation was finally adjudicated or relied upon; the Tribunal expressly stated that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the regularisation claim.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had placed their appointment letters and asserted long contractual service against sanctioned posts, but their representations for regularisation had not been decided.

Since the applicants agreed to have the representations considered and the respondents did not oppose issuance of such a direction, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to dispose of the O.A. without determining whether the applicants were legally entitled to regularisation.

The request for interim protection was not independently granted on merits; instead, the Tribunal directed that the applicants’ services should not be dispensed with until the stipulated period specified in the order, while leaving all substantive questions open.

The respondents were directed to decide the applicants’ pending representations, annexed as Annexure A-5 (Colly.), by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The applicants’ services were directed not to be dispensed with until the extended period ending 31 March 2027.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim for regularisation.

The pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.