Special Educator appointments must strictly adhere to Supreme Court mandates regarding eligibility, screening, and reservation policies.

The applicant applied for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

She claimed that while her OBC certificate was officially issued on 24.04.2021, it should be deemed issued on 05.04.2021, as a technical glitch in the Revenue Department prevented digital signatures on the earlier date.

The Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) did not consider her OBC status, treating her as a General/UR category candidate from another state and placing her on the UR waitlist.

The recruitment process for Special Educators is the subject of ongoing litigation before the Supreme Court of India in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Ors. v. Union of India Ors.

1. Whether the applicant's OBC certificate issued on 24.04.2021 should be deemed to have been issued on 05.04.2021 due to administrative technical glitches.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered under the OBC category for appointment to the post of Special Educator (Primary) in light of the directions passed by the Supreme Court regarding such appointments.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the ongoing directions and interim orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey Ors. v. Union of India Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 132/2016), which established norms for the appointment of Special Educators, the requirement of RCI (Rehabilitation Council of India) qualifications, and the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET).

It also referenced the principles of regularization and fair selection as discussed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) and subsequent cases.

The Tribunal observed that the entire recruitment and regularization framework for Special Educators in Delhi is currently governed by the Supreme Court's oversight in the Rajneesh Kumar Pandey case.

The Apex Court had constituted a Screening Committee to examine the credentials of candidates and directed that preference be given to certain contractual employees, subject to merit and reservation policies.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had specifically restricted the NCT of Delhi from making certain appointments (beyond an initial 500) without leave of the Court or pending the outcome of specific examinations.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant's specific grievances regarding her category and certificate date could not be decided in isolation and must be integrated into the screening and appointment process mandated by the Supreme Court.

Instead, it directed the respondents to consider the applicant's case strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey, subject to her merit, fulfillment of eligibility conditions, and the final outcome of the Apex Court proceedings.

The applicant was granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies, including approaching the Supreme Court, if she remains aggrieved by any subsequent adverse order.