ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri Gungalwar Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 46. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “……to pass an order(s) or direction(s) more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus in directing the Official Respondent No. 1 & 2 for regularisation & absorption on permanent basis of the Petitioners who working as Inclusive Education Resource Persons (IERPs) professionally termed as Special Educators with Special Education qualification working under Samagra Shiksha who provide Special Training to CwSN (Intellectually Disabled / Cerebral Palsy / Multiple Disabilities) at Mandal level in Bhavitha Centres for the vacancies arrived in the post of Special Education Teacher posts at Primary Level in the category of Secondary Grade teacher and Special Education Teacher posts at Upper Primary/Secondary Level in category of School Assistant in Government & Local Body Management Schools vide., G.O.Ms. No. 97 Finance (HRM-II) Department Dt. 26-08-2023 by considering their representations Dt. 25-08-2023 as the Petitioners are rendering their services in very similar projects with identical qualifications and are in expectation of regularisation of their services on the verge of longevity of their services with the Respondents and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.……” 3. The case of the petitioners in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The Petitioners have been working as Inclusive Education Resource Persons under the ‘Samagra Shiksha Scheme’, providing special training to Children with Special Needs, including the persons with intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, and multiple disabilities, in Bhavitha Centres. The Petitioners were appointed through a duly conducted selection process under SSA/RMSA and have been working continuously since 2006, providing both centre-based and home-based education and support to Children with Special Needs. ii) The Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.97, HRM-II) Department, dated 26.08.2023, creating 796 SGT-level and 727 School Assistant-level Special Education Teacher posts. The Petitioners were appointed through a duly conducted selection process under SSA/RMSA and have been working continuously since 2006, providing both centre-based and home-based education and support to Children with Special Needs. ii) The Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.97, HRM-II) Department, dated 26.08.2023, creating 796 SGT-level and 727 School Assistant-level Special Education Teacher posts. Under Section 10-A of the A.P. Public Employment Act, 1994, full-time contract employees working against sanctioned posts are eligible for regularisation and the petitioners meet that criteria. iii) The Petitioners submitted a representation dated 25.08.2023 seeking regularisation/absorption against the newly created posts. However, the Respondents have not taken any action and are likely to proceed with recruitment without considering the Petitioners’ legitimate claim. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD. A) The Apex Court in the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016, specifically observed as under: “In the judgment dated 28.10.2021, it was left to the Central Government to come out with a teacher-pupil ratio in such schools with special children and the ratio which we have been given by the Central Government is 1:10 for a primary school and 1:15 for middle and secondary schools respectively. Once we have the teacher-pupil ratio with us and also the figures as to the number of children with special needs in each of the States and UTs, by this time, each of the States and UTs should have at least identified the number of sanctioned posts. Under these circumstances, the following orders are being passed today: 1. Each States and UTs shall come out with notifications with the number of posts that they have sanctioned for teachers who have to impart education to children with special needs. 2. After the posts have been sanctioned and notified, which shall be done positively within a period of three weeks from today i.e. on or before 28.03.2025, these posts need to be advertised at least in two newspapers having wide circulation in the respective States as well as on the website of the Department of Education and also on the official Government website of each of the States. 3. Let the selection and appointment be made of qualified/competent/eligible teachers only. 3. Let the selection and appointment be made of qualified/competent/eligible teachers only. Further, the requirement of RCI qualification certificate also needs to be taken into account for appointment to the post as directed by this Court in its judgment dated 28.10.2021, as a candidate not having RCI Certificate shall be ineligible. Meanwhile, we have been informed that in many of the States and Union Territories, adhoc teachers on contractual basis are presently imparting education and taking classes of children with special needs. We have also been informed that in some of the States, these teachers have been continuing for the last 20 years, approximately. For these reasons, the States shall immediately constitute a Screening Committee consisting of the following: 1. State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (for short ‘Disability Commissioner’) appointed under Section 79 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘RPwD’) Act, 2016. 2. Secretary, Education of the concerned education department; 3. A nominee of the RCI who will be a competent person having knowledge in the prescribed area. This shall be the three-member committee for each of the States and UTs. We make it very clear that in case there is no disability commissioner available in any State, in that case only he/she shall be substituted by the Legal Representative (LR) or the law Secretary of the State concerned. The Screening Committee shall examine the case of each of the candidates who have been working on contract/daily wage basis to teach these children and those teachers who have been found to be competent/eligible and qualified to teach, shall be given the pay scale of special teacher. The past experience of these teachers shall also be kept in mind. However, the mandatory requirement for each of the candidates would be RCI qualification. Further, in case of a person who was already working and teaching for the last many years, the Screening Committee shall also be authorized consider relaxation of the age limit in appropriate cases. Let all of this be completed within a period of twelve weeks from today which will include the three weeks for the sanctioned posts which have to be identified. We make it absolutely clear that the benefits of pay scale will only be prospective and not retrospective i.e. from the date of their such appointment after selection. Let all of this be completed within a period of twelve weeks from today which will include the three weeks for the sanctioned posts which have to be identified. We make it absolutely clear that the benefits of pay scale will only be prospective and not retrospective i.e. from the date of their such appointment after selection. They will be appointed against the sanctioned posts and shall be given the pay-scale which is to be given on that post only after screening. It is made clear that those State where posts have already been sanctioned should immediately start the selection process. We also make it clear that in some of the States such as Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Manipur which are represented today through their respective counsel(s) before this Court and have stated that there have been some logistical problems for the appointment of trained teachers in their State too. All the same, they shall initiate the exercise, which shall be subject to the availability of teachers with qualifications as indicated above. List on 15.07.2025.” B) The Apex Court in the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016, specifically observed as under: “1. Learned senior counsel appearing before us for the respective parties have voiced their grievance in unison that the directions contained in the earlier order dated 07 th March, 2025 have been observed by the States/Union Territories in the breach. 2. In that view of the matter, we call upon each of the 36 States/Union Territories (mentioned at page 10 of the said order dated 07 th March, 2025) to file separate affidavits pleading compliance of the directions contained therein within three weeks from date. 3. In the event any State/Union Territory fails to file such affidavit, the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Education Department of each such State/Union Territory shall remain present on the next date of hearing, i.e., 29 th August, 2025, when these petitions shall be re-listed and explain why action for contempt of court shall not be initiated. 4. The affidavits must be sworn by a responsible officer of the Education Department of the concerned State/Union Territory, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. 5. Copies of the affidavits shall be made over to Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae at least 72 hours prior to the returnable date. ” 5. 4. The affidavits must be sworn by a responsible officer of the Education Department of the concerned State/Union Territory, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. 5. Copies of the affidavits shall be made over to Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Amicus Curiae at least 72 hours prior to the returnable date. ” 5. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly puts forth the following submissions: 5.1 The Petitioners were appointed by the District Collector & Chairman, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Hyderabad on contract basis to serve as IED Resource persons for providing education to children with disabilities. 5.2 All the Petitioners possess the requisite qualifications, including the qualifications recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India. 5.3 After the formation of the State of Telangana, the Telangana Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan scheme was constituted and placed under the supervision of the Principal Secretary of Education and the writ Petitioners, however, continued in their service. 5.4 The Apex Court, in its order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 in “Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Others v. Union of I ndia and others”, took a serious view of the matter that persons were being appointed on a contract basis without any rules, regulations, or prescribed conditions of service in the cadre of Special Education Teachers for children with disabilities. 5.5 The Apex Court vide order dated 15.07.2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.132 of 2016, directed the various State Governments to file affidavits stating the action taken by the respective Governments in pursuance to the specific directions issued by the Apex Court in its order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition(Civil) No.132 of 2016. Though several teachers are working in recognized schools in the State of Telangana, this fact was not placed before the Apex Court which is contrary to the specific directions issued by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016, (referred to and extracted above). 5.6 The Government issued a direct recruitment notification on 28.02.2024 proposing to fill up 1,523 posts, while around 523 posts are presently vacant in the State Government. However, the Government of Telangana has not provided any absorption or regularisation scheme, despite the directions of the Apex Court to absorb the teachers who have been working under the Telangana Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan scheme, instituted by the State Government pursuant to the formation of the State of Telangana. 6. However, the Government of Telangana has not provided any absorption or regularisation scheme, despite the directions of the Apex Court to absorb the teachers who have been working under the Telangana Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan scheme, instituted by the State Government pursuant to the formation of the State of Telangana. 6. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the specific directions issued by the Apex Court vide orders dated 07.03.2025 and 15.07.2025 need to be implemented forthwith in respect of the petitioners herein, and that the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 25.08.2023, seeking regularization of their services in view of the long length of service rendered by the petitioners with the respondents, need to be considered and appropriate orders be passed Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, on the other hand, placing reliance on the averments made in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, and the judgment passed by this Court dated 03.06.2024 in W.P. No. 8208 of 2020 and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P. No. 10744 of 2017 and batch, contends that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. It is further contended that the Government of Telangana cannot be directed to follow the policy adopted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the service conditions of the petitioners herein and therefore, no writ of mandamus can be issued. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 contended that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 8. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 contended that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 8. A bare perusal of the orders of the Apex Court dated 07.03.2025 passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court for furnishing information pertaining to children with special needs in each of the States and Union Territories, insofar as the State of Telangana is concerned, the figures submitted to the Apex Court indicate a total of 32,794. 9. A bare perusal of the directions issued by the Apex Court dated 07.03.2025 clearly indicates that each State, including the State of Telangana, should come out with a notification specifying the number of posts sanctioned for teachers who are to impart education to children with special needs and after the posts are sanctioned and notified within a period of three weeks from the date of the said order i.e., on or before 28.03.2025, these posts were required to be advertised at least in two newspapers having wide circulation in the respective States, as well as on the website of the Department of Education and the official Government website of each State. The selection and appointment were to be made only of qualified, competent, and eligible teachers. Further, the requirement of an RCI qualification certificate was also directed to be taken into account for appointment to the post, as held by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 28.10.2021, since a candidate not possessing an RCI certificate would be ineligible. However, the respondents had not followed the said exercise, as directed by the Apex Court on 07.03.2025 in W.P. No. 132 of 2016 in “ Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India ”, nor have the specific directions dated 15.07.2025, directing each of the States to file separate affidavits in compliance with the directions issued on 07.03.2025 by the Apex Court in “ Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Others v. Union of India and Others ”, been complied with. 10. This Court opines that the directions issued by the Apex Court cannot be ignored and must be strictly complied with. 10. This Court opines that the directions issued by the Apex Court cannot be ignored and must be strictly complied with. The relief sought by the petitioners in the present writ petition is the implementation of the directions of the Apex Court dated 07.03.2025 and 15.07.2025, passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 in “ Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India ”, and for consideration of the representations of the petitioners dated 25.08.2023 seeking regularization of the petitioners’ services against the notified 1,523 Special Education Teachers’ posts, duly taking into account the fact that the petitioners have rendered more than two decades of service with the respondents herein, which is quite reasonable. 11. This Court opines that the pleas put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.10744 of 2017 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.06.2024 passed in W.P. No. 8208 of 2020, are not tenable in view of the specific directions issued by the Apex Court dated 07.03.2025 and 15.07.2025 pertaining to children with special needs, and the concern expressed by the Apex Court in its order dated 07.03.2025, wherein it was brought on record, in figures, that the State of Telangana has 32,794 children with special needs. Therefore, the State is bound to sanction the posts required to cater to the educational needs of such children. The judgments relied upon by the respondents dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.10744 of 2017, and the judgment dated 03.06.2024 passed in W.P. No. 8208 of 2020, have no application to the facts of the present case and are accordingly, rejected. 12. Therefore, the State is bound to sanction the posts required to cater to the educational needs of such children. The judgments relied upon by the respondents dated 19.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.10744 of 2017, and the judgment dated 03.06.2024 passed in W.P. No. 8208 of 2020, have no application to the facts of the present case and are accordingly, rejected. 12. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 46, c) The observations of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 dated 07.03.2025, (referred to and extracted above), d) The observations of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 dated 15.07.2025, (referred to and extracted above), e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.8 to 11 of the present order, The writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 25.08.2023, seeking regularization and absorption of the petitioners on permanent basis, who are working as I nclusive Education Resource Persons (IERPs), professionally termed as Special Educators, possessing Special Education qualifications, and are working under Samagra Shiksha who provide special training to Children with Special Needs (CwSN), including those with intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, and multiple disabilities, at the Mandal level in Bhavitha Centres, duly considering the cases of the petitioners for the vacancies that have arisen in the posts of Special Education Teachers at the Primary Level in the category of Secondary Grade Teachers, and Special Education Teachers at the Upper Primary/ Secondary Level in the category of School Assistants in Government and Local Body Management Schools, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 97, Finance (HRM-II ) Department, dated 26.08.2023, as the petitioners are rendering services in similar projects with identical qualifications and are legitimately expecting regularization of their services in view of the long duration of service since 2006 onwards rendered by them with the respondents and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments pertaining to regularization (referred to and extracted above) and the specific directions of the Apex Court dated 07.03.2025 and 15.07.2025 passed in W.P. (Civil) No. 132 of 2016 (referred to and extracted above), in accordance to law and duly communicate the decision on the petitioners’ representation dated 25.08.2023 to the petitioners herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.