Regularization and appointment of Special Educators remain subject to outcomes of pending Supreme Court proceedings.

Eleven applicants approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the final select list and cut-off marks for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Post Code 32/21.

They contended that candidates possessing Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) registration obtained after the cut-off date (14.04.2021) should be excluded and a fresh merit list drawn.

The recruitment process for Special Educators is currently the subject of ongoing litigation and monitoring by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Whether the final select list and cut-off marks for Post Code 32/21 should be set aside to exclude candidates with RCI registration obtained after the cut-off date.

2. Whether the Tribunal can grant specific relief regarding appointments and seniority while the broader issue of Special Educator recruitment is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The court primarily relied on the ongoing directions and guidelines established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 132/2016], which governs the norms, standards, and appointment processes for Special Educators across India.

It applied the principle of judicial discipline regarding sub-judice matters, noting the Supreme Court's creation of a Screening Committee to evaluate the credentials and eligibility (including RCI qualification and Teacher Eligibility Test/TET status) of candidates.

The court also referenced the "catch-up" and regularization principles from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The Tribunal observed that the specific recruitment process challenged by the applicants is inextricably linked to the comprehensive directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Rajneesh Kumar Pandey case.

The Tribunal noted that the Apex Court has frozen certain appointments (specifically regarding 945 posts) and mandated that a Screening Committee verify credentials, including RCI and TET qualifications, to ensure quality education for children with special needs.

Because the Supreme Court has already permitted the GNCTD to appoint only 500 teachers on merit while staying further appointments until a status report is filed, the Tribunal reasoned that it could not interfere with the select list or grant the requested relief at this juncture.

The Tribunal concluded that any adjustment to the merit list or cut-off criteria must align with the final adjudication by the Apex Court to avoid conflicting judicial orders.

The Original Application was disposed of with the direction that the applicants' candidatures shall remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The applicants were granted liberty to move appropriate applications before the Hon’ble Supreme Court if so advised; no costs were awarded.