Regularization of contractual special educators must strictly follow Supreme Court-mandated screening and eligibility standards.

The applicant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Special Schools on a contractual basis on February 23, 2010

She served continuously for nearly 16 years through periodic extensions, with the latest extension valid until March 31, 2026

The applicant sought regularization of her services effective from her initial appointment date, claiming she was fully qualified, registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), and selected via a transparent process

The respondents rejected her representation on December 17, 2025, asserting that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization and that the matter regarding Special Education Teachers (SETs) 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 contractual appointment based on her long tenure and qualifications

2. Whether the claim for regularization can be adjudicated independently while the broader issue of special educator appointments is pending before the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey

The Tribunal considered Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution regarding fair treatment and employment

It referenced the principles of regularization established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) and subsequent refinements in Jaggo v. UOI & Ors. (2024) and Dharam Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. (2025)

Primarily, the Tribunal relied on the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 132/2016), which mandated the creation of permanent posts for special teachers and established a Screening Committee to evaluate the credentials (RCI registration and TET qualifications) of contractual teachers for substantive appointment

The Tribunal analyzed the series of interim and final orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Rajneesh Kumar Pandey litigation

It noted that the Apex Court had specifically directed the NCT of Delhi to constitute a Screening Committee to examine 1,443 contractual special educators

The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court's orders dated October 28, 2025, and February 3, 2026, explicitly require the Screening Committee to recommend candidates who possess RCI qualifications and are Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualified for appointment on a substantive basis

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s prayer for regularization could not be decided in isolation but must be aligned with the ongoing judicial mechanism established by the Supreme Court to ensure uniformity and compliance with specialized educational standards

The Tribunal held that no further independent orders were required at this stage given the pending proceedings in the Apex Court

Liberty was granted to the applicant to seek further remedies if aggrieved by any future adverse order passed pursuant to the Screening Committee’s evaluation

No costs were awarded