Settlement talk in July, a new bench in August, now no hearing till 18 November: who is paying for the wait?
On 13 October 2026 the 69000 teacher recruitment case was on the Supreme Court's list, but it was not heard. The next date is 18 November 2026. That is another 36 days of waiting.
This article puts three things side by side: how close the dispute was to ending in July, what changed in August, and where the delay is coming from now. The full sequence of events is in the timeline article.
What happened on 13 October
- The case was listed before the bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria, in Court No. 14, as item 21.
- According to live updates on a candidates' blog, the court was still on items 10 and 11 after 12 noon. The 69000 matter had not been reached by then.
- The case was not heard. The next date is 18 November 2026.
At the time of writing we have not seen the written order of 13 October. The 18 November date is based on what candidates were told from the court. We will update this article when the order is available.
One thing should be clear: a case not being reached on the list is not a decision against any side. The court ran out of time that day, and nothing more.
July: how far the settlement talk had gone
| Date | What the record shows |
|---|---|
| 4 February 2026 | The Court told the State's counsel what it had in mind |
| 19 May 2026 | The State was "ready and willing" to appoint candidates who come into the revised list |
| 20 July 2026 | The State's affidavit, with a list of 8,270 names |
| 28 July 2026 | The Court said it would decide whether to use Article 142 to end the dispute or to hear the case on merits |
There was no settlement. It was under consideration. But at the end of July there was a concrete proposal on the table, and the Court was treating it as one possible route.
August: the bench changed
- Until 28 July 2026 the bench was headed by Justice Dipankar Datta.
- Since 4 August 2026 the case has been before the bench of Justice Bhatti and Justice Anjaria.
- No order or official statement has given a reason.
Two things must be said together. The order of 19 May itself recorded that the matter was "not part-heard" and should be listed before "the regular Bench". And deciding which case goes to which bench is the Chief Justice's administrative power. So this may simply have been a routine roster change. We are not questioning the intent of any judge. More on this: Why did the bench change at the settlement stage?
The new bench did not put the case off. On 9 September it divided the matters into eight categories, and it heard the case on 8, 9, 16, 22 to 24, 29 and 30 September and on 6 October. But the hearing is now on merits, from the beginning. The road that looked short in July has become long.
Where the delay is coming from now
The first root of the delay is the 2020 error that the State itself has admitted. There is a separate article on that: The delay began with the State's error. But the delay of 13 October did not come from that error. It came from the court's queue.
- Pending cases: At the end of August 2026, 94,639 cases were pending in the Supreme Court (National Judicial Data Grid figure).
- One day's list: A bench has dozens of matters listed before it in a day. A case that is low on the list and needs hours of argument is often not reached. That is what happened on 13 October.
- Holidays: There are 36 days between 13 October and 18 November. They include the Dussehra break (19 to 24 October) and the Diwali break (9 to 14 November). Only about 15 court working days remain.
- Arguments are not over: By 30 September the reserved-category respondents and the State had not finished their arguments. On 6 October the Court asked counsel not to repeat the same submissions (according to blog reports). No source says how many days of argument remain.
This question is not only about the 69000 case. When more than 94,000 cases are in the queue, every case takes time from another. But where thousands of families have waited almost eight years and the arguments are midway, asking for fixed dates is not unreasonable.
Who is paying for the wait
Delay is not a defeat for any side. But its cost is not shared equally.
- Candidates left out: The advertisement came out in December 2018 and the exam was held in January 2019. Those who were wrongly left out then are still out. Every month takes away another month of salary, seniority and age.
- Teachers in service: Those who have been teaching since 2020 also do not know what happens to them if a new list is drawn up.
- B.Ed. candidates: While they waited, the law on B.Ed. changed on 11 August 2023. On this: Same exam, same degree, different outcome.
- Schools and children: Posts stuck in the dispute cannot be filled.
For the State and the Court this is a file. For a candidate it is the working years of a career.
What candidates are asking for
- That the case be listed high on 18 November, so that it is reached.
- That consecutive dates and a time-bound schedule be fixed for the remaining arguments.
- That the reason for the change of bench be made public.
- That a judgment be delivered, whichever side it favours.
These are demands. Whether the Court accepts them is not yet decided.