Introduction
In a significant stride toward inclusive education, the Court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Delhi, issued a detailed and progressive order on December 31, 2019, in the matter of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. Educational Authorities of NCT of Delhi (Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072-84). This case highlights the systemic gaps in the recruitment of Special Educators (SETs) in Delhi’s schools and underlines the urgent need to provide equitable education to children with disabilities as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
Notably, this order was subsequently referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others [W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017, decided on 28 October 2021], while addressing the critical issue of recruitment and deployment of Special Educators across India. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar relied on the findings and directions of the State Commissioner’s order to strengthen the national discourse on inclusive education.
Background of the Case
Ms. Reshma Parveen, a CTET-qualified Special Educator with a 58% locomotor disability and RCI registration, brought to the Court’s attention a critical implementation failure: despite a 2009 Delhi High Court direction requiring two Special Educators per school, most of Delhi’s 5700 government schools still do not have even one.
Her demands included:
-
Permanent recruitment of at least two Special Educators (Primary) in each school.
-
Immediate deployment of contractual or guest Special Educators as a stop-gap.
-
Proper employment opportunities for trained Special Educators.
-
Quality education access for children with disabilities.
Key Submissions from Respondents
Various agencies presented fragmented and incomplete responses:
-
North DMC: Claimed recruitment was the South DMC's responsibility. 700 posts had been forwarded to DSSSB.
-
Delhi Cantonment Board: Had only contractual Special Educators—none permanent.
-
NDMC: Trained 38 teachers, but had no regular Special Education cadre.
-
EDMC: Operating with 92 SETs across 354 schools, with cluster-model plans due to shortfall.
-
Directorate of Education: No sanctioned posts at primary level, though 2048 SET posts exist at higher levels. SETs often deployed for cross-disability roles without RCI-sanctioned training.
-
RCI: Objected to DoE's practice of deploying unqualified teachers across disability types, citing violation of Section 13 of the RCI Act.
-
NCTE: Failed to respond to key questions regarding qualification and eligibility frameworks.
Expert Opinions and Key Observations
Recognizing the complexity and lack of a standard formula for teacher deployment, the State Commissioner Mr. Dhariyal convened consultations with education and disability experts. Highlights include:
-
No clear norm exists on the required number of SETs per school.
-
Disability-specific teacher-pupil ratios were recommended:
-
1:8 for VI, HI, Cerebral Palsy
-
1:5 for ID, ASD, SLD
-
1:2 for Deafblind and multiple disabilities
-
While the cluster model was viewed as a temporary fix, it was unanimously emphasized that RCI-approved qualifications (D.Ed. for primary, B.Ed. for higher levels) must be maintained.
-
The system must treat SETs at par with general teachers, with the ability to teach all students.
Directions & Recommendations by the SCPD Court
The State Commissioner, Mr. TD Dhariyal invoking powers under Section 75 of the RPwD Act, issued wide-ranging, time-bound directives:
-
Creation of two SET posts per school, with specialization across all RCI-recognized disabilities.
-
Deployment strategy based on disability-wise student data and appropriate teacher-student ratios.
-
Conversion of general teaching posts into SET posts where feasible.
-
Establishment of resource centers in schools or clusters (within 2–3 km radius).
-
Reform of recruitment rules and service conditions to enable SETs to teach children with and without disabilities.
-
Curriculum reform:
-
NCTE to integrate compulsory modules on sign language, Braille, and inclusive pedagogy in B.Ed./D.Ed.
-
NCERT to provide online training on the Swayam platform.
-
Mandatory training for in-service teachers on disability inclusion.
-
Ministry of Education to issue model guidelines on inclusive education for replication nationwide.
On RCI’s concern, the State Commissioner clarified that RCI registration is not required for every teacher, but orientation and training in inclusive practices is essential for all.
Reference in Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court of India, while deciding Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P. (C) No. 876 of 2017), explicitly referred to this 2019 order of the State Commissioner. The Apex Court recognized its evidentiary and policy value in demonstrating the gaps and practical measures needed to ensure educational rights of children with disabilities under Article 21A of the Constitution and the RPwD Act. The reference in a constitutional bench decision highlights the legal relevance and persuasive authority of orders passed by State Commissioners under Section 75 of the Act.
Conclusion and Impact
This comprehensive and well-reasoned order is a landmark in administrative jurisprudence on inclusive education. It not only addresses the staffing gaps in schools but also provides a blueprint for systemic reform in teacher training, resource allocation, and policy coordination across departments.
The State Commissioner’s reliance on multi-stakeholder consultation—from experts to implementing agencies—and the insistence on a rights-based, data-driven, and disability-specific strategy reflects the spirit of the RPwD Act and India's commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
As the order awaits compliance reports from authorities, it becomes an essential resource for disability rights advocates, policy makers, and educators seeking to ensure every child with a disability in Delhi—and across India—gets the education they are entitled to.
Read the order embedded below:
