Baptist Union Of North India (Regd.) And Anr. vs Director Of Education And Ors.

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 17 July, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 11919/2023 & CM APPL. 46601/2023
BAPTIST UNION OF NORTH INDIA (REGD.) AND ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal and Mr.
Akshat Singh, Advocates.

versus

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi and Mr. Sachin Garg,
Advocates for R-1 to R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered society which manages Petitioner No.
2, Francis Girls Senior Secondary School. The School was established in the
year 1886 and is a recognised aided minority educational institution. By the
nd
present petition, the Petitioners assail the communications dated 22
th
September, 2022 and 14 June, 2023 issued by the Directorate of Education,
whereby their request to undertake direct recruitment against vacant
teaching and non-teaching posts was not granted.
2. The grievance of the Petitioners does not concern the creation of
additional posts. It concerns the continued refusal of the Directorate of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 1 of 12

Education to permit recruitment against vacancies stated to exist within the
sanctioned aided strength of the School.
3. The record shows that the School first submitted its proposal for
th
filling the vacant posts on 4 October, 2017. The proposal was thereafter
revised from time to time at the instance of the Directorate, including for
updating the post-fixation statement and the applicable roster. The School
claims to have removed the deficiencies pointed out by the Directorate and
rd th
resubmitted its proposal on 23 May, 2018, 12 February, 2019 and, finally,
th
on 4 March, 2022.
4. It is the Petitioners’ case that the vacancies have continued to increase
with the passage of time. It is stated that the School is presently functioning
with only one Post Graduate Teacher, three Trained Graduate Teachers, two
Laboratory Assistants and one Sweeper as its regular staff. The Petitioners
contend that the continued depletion of regular teaching and non-teaching
staff has placed the very functioning of the School in jeopardy.
nd
5. By its communication dated 22 September, 2022, the Directorate
informed the School that a proposal to undertake recruitment in aided
schools through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, hereafter
“DSSSB”, was under consideration. The School was advised that, until the
proposal was finalised, its vacant posts could be manned through guest
teachers.
th
6. The School thereafter submitted a representation dated 15 May, 2023
seeking urgent permission to undertake direct recruitment. By the second
th
impugned communication dated 14 June, 2023, the Directorate declined to
grant such permission at that stage. The material portion of the
communication reads as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 2 of 12

“In this regard it is informed that the Directorate of Education, GNCTD has
already proposed recruitment of staff in Government Aided Schools through
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, GNCTD and the said proposal
is still under consideration of the higher authorities. Hence, till the outcome
of the said proposal, no permission can be given to any aided school for
undertaking direct recruitment of staff.”

th
7. The communication further referred to the circular dated 20 January,
2021 and advised the School to submit a proposal for deployment of guest
teachers as a temporary measure. The School declined the offer and
reiterated its request for permission to undertake regular recruitment by its
th
representation dated 30 June, 2023.
Submissions
8. Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners,
submits that the existing recruitment mechanism could not have been kept in
suspension merely because the Government was contemplating a different
mechanism through DSSSB. A proposal under consideration, he submits,
neither has the force of law nor can it override the Delhi School Education
Act, 1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
9. He further submits that the right of a minority educational institution
to select and appoint its teaching and non-teaching staff constitutes an
integral part of its right to administer the institution under Article 30(1) of
the Constitution. Reliance is placed upon Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College
1
Society v. State of Gujarat ; T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of
2
Karnataka ; Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose &

1
(1974) 1 SCC 717.
2
(2002) 8 SCC 481.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 3 of 12

3 4
Ors. ; Queen Mary’s School v. Union of India , ; and Delhi Tamil
5
Education Association v. Director of Education .
10. Mr. Chacko points out that the appeal preferred by the Directorate
against the decision in Delhi Tamil Education Association was dismissed
by the Division Bench in Lt. Governor of Delhi v. Delhi Tamil Education
6
Association. The Division Bench reiterated the direction permitting
recruitment, subject to strict compliance with Rule 96(3) of the Delhi School
Education Rules, 1973. The judgment was thereafter carried by the
Directorate to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 28295/2024,
th
which was dismissed on 6 December, 2024.
11. Without prejudice to the Petitioners’ contention concerning the extent
of their autonomy under Article 30(1), Mr. Chacko states that the School
shall undertake the proposed recruitment strictly in accordance with Rule 96
and the other applicable provisions of the Delhi School Education Rules,
1973. He submits that the School shall constitute the Selection Committees
contemplated by the Rules, permit the participation of the nominees of the
Directorate and comply with the prescribed qualifications, experience, age,
roster and all other regulatory requirements applicable to the respective
posts.
12. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel appearing for the
Respondents, opposes the petition. She submits that the School receives 95
per cent grant-in-aid from the Government and that the Directorate has a

3
(2007) 1 SCC 386.
4
2011 SCC OnLine Del 4884.
5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4158.
6
2024:DHC:5540-DB.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 4 of 12

legitimate interest in ensuring that recruitment against aided posts is fair,
transparent and free from malpractice.
13. Ms. Ahlawat refers to complaints of irregularities in recruitment
undertaken by certain aided schools, including allegations concerning non-
transparent scrutiny of applications, failure to call eligible candidates and
reliance upon fabricated experience certificates. She submits that these
instances justified suspension of recruitment until a more transparent and
objective mechanism through DSSSB could be devised.
14. Reliance is placed upon Sk. Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee,
7
Contai Rahamania High Madrasah & Ors., to contend that the right under
Article 30(1) is not absolute and that conditions concerning the welfare of
students and teachers may be applied to provide a proper academic
atmosphere, so long as they do not interfere with the right of administration
or management. Further reliance is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v.
8
Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College to submit that an institution
receiving aid is bound by the conditions attached thereto and therefore,
expected to comply with the same.
15. Ms. Ahlawat also draws the attention of the Court to the order dated
rd
3 February, 2026 passed by the Division Bench in LPA 372/2025 titled
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Raisina Bengali School . By the said order,
the Division Bench has referred to a Larger Bench, inter alia , the questions
concerning the applicability of Rule 96 to aided minority schools, the extent
of the regulatory authority of the Director of Education in recruitment and
the balance between the rights under Article 30(1) and the legitimate interest

7
(2020) 6 SCC 689.
8
(2021) 15 SCC 600.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 5 of 12

of the State in ensuring transparency, quality of education and financial
accountability. On that basis, Ms. Ahlawat initially suggested that the
hearing of the present petition be deferred until the Larger Bench renders its
opinion.
Analysis
16. The Court has considered the submissions. There can be no quarrel
with the proposition that an institution which receives grant-in-aid is bound
to observe valid regulatory requirements governing the utilisation of public
funds. The State is entitled to ensure that recruitment is undertaken against
sanctioned posts, that the applicable mode of recruitment and roster are
observed, that the candidates possess the prescribed qualifications and
experience, and that no liability is imposed upon the public exchequer in
respect of appointments made contrary to law.
17. Equally, the right under Article 30(1) is not a right to maladminister.
The decisions in Sk. Md. Rafique and Principal Abhay Nandan Inter
College recognise the authority of the State to impose reasonable regulatory
measures in the interests of students, teachers and the maintenance of
educational standards.
18. The precise extent of the regulatory authority of the Directorate and
the applicability of Rule 96 to aided minority schools are among the
questions presently awaiting consideration by the Larger Bench. It is neither
necessary nor appropriate for this Court to pronounce upon those wider
questions in the present proceedings.
19. The controversy arising from the impugned communications lies
within a narrower compass. The Petitioners’ proposal was not rejected on
the ground that the posts were outside the sanctioned aided strength, that no
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 6 of 12

vacancies existed, that the applicable roster had not been maintained, that
surplus employees were available for absorption, or that the candidates
proposed to be appointed did not possess the prescribed qualifications.
20. The sole ground assigned in both communications was that a proposal
to undertake recruitment in aided schools through DSSSB was under
consideration and that, until its finalisation, no aided school would be
permitted to undertake direct recruitment.
21. The pendency of the reference in LPA 372/2025 does not preclude
this Court from examining the legality of that reason. The questions referred
to the Larger Bench concern the applicability of Rule 96 and the permissible
extent of governmental oversight. The present communications do not
proceed on any non-compliance with Rule 96 or any other statutory
requirement. They proceed entirely upon a pending proposal to replace the
existing recruitment mechanism with recruitment through DSSSB.
22. A proposal under consideration does not acquire normative force
merely because the Government intends to adopt it at a future stage. Until
the governing statutory regime is validly altered, administrative action must
conform to the law presently in force. Executive instructions may
supplement statutory rules where the rules are silent; they cannot amend,
supersede or suspend the operation of statutory provisions. The principle
9
stands settled in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan .
23. No statutory amendment, notified rule or final policy placing
recruitment in aided schools under DSSSB has been brought to the notice of
the Court. The existing recruitment process could not, therefore, have been

9
AIR 1967 SC 1910.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 7 of 12

kept in indefinite abeyance solely in anticipation of a different mechanism
being introduced at some uncertain future date.
rd
24. The Respondents have also relied upon the circular dated 3
February, 2006, under which aided schools were required to obtain
clearance before initiating direct recruitment. The circular envisages that,
before such clearance is granted, the Directorate would examine whether
any surplus employee is available for absorption. Such scrutiny may have a
legitimate regulatory and financial purpose. The circular does not, however,
authorise an indiscriminate suspension of recruitment in every aided school
merely because an alternative recruitment policy is under contemplation.
25. The counter affidavit seeks to support the embargo by referring to
alleged malpractices in recruitment undertaken by other aided schools.
These allegations do not form part of either of the impugned
communications. Several of the developments relied upon in the counter
affidavit, including the constitution of a committee by the Lieutenant
th
Governor on 10 October, 2023, are subsequent to the impugned decisions.
26. It is settled that the validity of an administrative decision must be
tested on the reasons which weighed with the authority at the time the
decision was made. An order which is otherwise unsustainable cannot be
10
improved by reasons subsequently introduced through an affidavit.
27. In any event, complaints concerning recruitment by other institutions
may justify the prescription of lawful safeguards, closer scrutiny of records,
verification of qualifications and action against institutions found to have
committed specific irregularities. They cannot, without an enabling
provision, justify an indefinite prohibition upon recruitment by every aided
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 8 of 12

school. Significantly, no allegation of malpractice in recruitment has been
made against the Petitioner School.
28. The offer to deploy guest teachers does not answer the grievance of
the Petitioners. Guest teachers may be engaged as an interim measure to
prevent disruption of classroom instruction while a regular vacancy is in the
process of being filled. Such deployment does not amount to filling a
permanent sanctioned vacancy and cannot furnish a justification for keeping
th
regular recruitment itself in abeyance. The circular dated 20 January, 2021,
upon which the Respondents rely, also describes deployment of guest
teachers as a temporary measure.
29. The Court is conscious of the order of reference in LPA 372/2025.
The order merely refers the formulated questions to a Larger Bench and
does not direct that recruitment in all aided minority schools be stayed
pending the reference.
30. In St. Anthony’s Boys Secondary School v. Directorate of
11
Education , a Coordinate Bench, after taking note of the reference in LPA
372/2025, declined to postpone adjudication where such postponement
would cause immediate prejudice. The relief granted therein was made
subject to the orders which may be passed by the Larger Bench.
31. Although the factual circumstances in that case concerned employees
who had already been appointed and were awaiting release of grant-in-aid,
the course adopted therein is apposite. In the present case, the School asserts
that it is functioning with only four regular teachers and that a further

10
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner , (1978) 1 SCC 405.
11
2026:DHC:5271.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 9 of 12

indefinite postponement would seriously impair its ability to discharge its
educational obligations.
32. At the same time, the regulatory concerns expressed by the
Directorate cannot be disregarded. Those concerns can, for the present, be
adequately addressed by binding the Petitioners to their statement that the
recruitment shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with Rule 96 and all
other applicable regulatory requirements, without expressing any opinion as
to whether Rule 96 applies to an aided minority school as a matter of law or
upon the precise extent of the role of the nominees of the Directorate.
33. The Court, therefore, holds that the Respondents could not have
declined to permit recruitment solely because a proposal to recruit staff of
aided schools through DSSSB was under consideration. The contemplated
proposal, having neither been finalised nor acquired the force of law, could
not operate as an embargo upon recruitment under the existing regime.
Directions
34. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
nd th
i. The communications dated 22 September, 2022 and 14 June, 2023
are set aside insofar as they decline recruitment on the ground that a
proposal to undertake recruitment through DSSSB is under consideration.
ii. The recruitment proposal already submitted by the Petitioners shall
stand revived. The Petitioners shall, within ten days, furnish to the
concerned Deputy Director of Education an updated statement identifying
the teaching and non-teaching vacancies which continue to exist within the
sanctioned aided strength of the School.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 10 of 12

iii. The updated proposal shall be accompanied by the latest post-fixation
statement, the applicable roster, particulars concerning the mode by which
each vacancy is required to be filled, and such other documents as are
required under the applicable Rules.
iv. Within two weeks of receipt of the updated proposal, the Directorate
shall communicate to the Petitioners any specific objection concerning the
sanctioned status of a post, the applicable mode of recruitment, availability
of surplus employees for absorption, the roster or any other statutory
requirement. The proposal shall not be declined merely on the ground that
recruitment through DSSSB is contemplated or under consideration, or on
the basis of general allegations concerning recruitment by other aided
schools.
v. Having regard to the statement made on behalf of the Petitioners, the
Selection Committees shall, without prejudice to the questions pending
before the Larger Bench, be constituted in accordance with Rule 96 of the
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The Directorate shall make the
nominations contemplated under the said Rule within the same period of two
weeks.
vi. The recruitment process shall thereafter be undertaken strictly in
accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and the qualifications,
experience, age, roster and other regulatory requirements governing the
respective posts. The role of the nominees of the Directorate shall be
governed by the applicable provisions of the Delhi School Education Rules,
without prejudice to the decision of the Larger Bench.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 11 of 12

vii. The Petitioners shall endeavour to conclude the recruitment process
within eight weeks from the date on which the nominations are
communicated by the Directorate.
viii. This order shall not be construed as authorising recruitment against
any post which does not form part of the sanctioned aided strength. Nor does
it determine any claim for grant-in-aid in respect of a post which is found
not to fall within such sanctioned strength.
ix. Nothing in this order shall preclude the Directorate from pointing out
or taking action in respect of any specific violation of the applicable
statutory provisions found in the recruitment process, subject to the rights
and remedies available to the Petitioners in law.
35. The present judgment is confined to the legality of the reasons
recorded in the impugned communications. This Court has expressed no
opinion on the questions referred to the Larger Bench in LPA 372/2025, and
all rights and contentions of the parties in that regard are left open.
36. The writ petition, along with the pending applications, stands
disposed of in the above terms.



SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 17, 2026/ hc

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ANITA BAITAL
Signing Date:21.07.2026
20:51:19
W.P.(C) 11919/2023 Page 12 of 12