St Anthonys Boys Secondary School vs Directorate Of Education

$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on:12.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025
ST ANTHONYS BOYS SECONDARY SCHOOL ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Romy Chacko Sr Adv.
with Mr. Ashwin Romy, Mr. Sachin Singh
Dalal, Mr. Akshat Singh & Mr. Joe
Sebastian, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION ...Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat SC, Mr.
Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, and
Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
J U D G M E N T
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner School has approached this
Court seeking directions against the respondent i.e., Directorate of
Education ( “DoE”) to release the grant-in-aid for twenty teaching and
non-teaching staff members and further prays for quashing of order
dated 18.07.2025, which directed the petitioner to withhold its
recruitment process, as well as order dated 09.10.2025, whereby
surprise inspection of various schools including the petitioner School
has been ordered.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 1 of 31

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The petitioner School namely, ST. Anthony’s Boys Secondary School
is an aided Christian Minority Educational Institution, established in
the year 1922 by an Italian missionary with the objective of imparting
quality education to weaker sections of the society.
3. The petitioner School was granted status of Minority Educational
Institution by the National Commission for Minority Educational
Institutions vide certificate dated 21.06.2006.
4. The petitioner School vide letter dated 16.10.2018 submitted requisite
document and sought permission to fill up 12 vacant positions towards
the requirement of teaching and non-teaching staff.
5. The respondent/DoE sought clarification to the aforesaid letter
regarding the number of vacant positions, to which, the petitioner
School replied vide clarification letter dated 29.03.2019.
6. The respondent/DoE vide letter dated 22.09.2022, rejected the
proposal of the petitioner School and stated that until the proposal for
filling up vacancies in government aided schools through direct
recruitment is finalized, such vacant posts may be filled up by
appointing guest teachers.
7. The petitioner School again vide letter dated 06.10.2022 attempted to
seek the aforesaid permission from the respondent/DoE but the same
was again rejected by the respondent.
8. The petitioner relied on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 28.05.2024 titled as Delhi Tamil Education Assn. v.
1
Director of Education , and invited applications vide advertisement

1
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4158.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 2 of 31

dated 08.07.2024 towards filling up of the 20 vacant positions for
teaching and non-teaching staff.
9. Pursuant thereto, vide letter dated 27.07.2024, the respondent/DoE
was requested to release the salaries of the successful candidates under
grant-in-aid and a vacancy list was also duly supplied to the
respondent.
10. However, the respondent/DoE issued a memorandum dated
03.08.2024, directing the petitioner to withhold the recruitment
process on the ground that the judgment in the case of Delhi Tamil
Education Assn. (Supra) is under challenge.
11. The said memorandum dated 03.08.2024 was challenged by the
petitioner School before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12957 /2024 on the
ground of being bad in law and in violation of law as laid down in
Delhi Tamil Education Assn. (Supra).
12. While the matter was sub judice in the aforesaid writ petition, the
respondent/DoE issued another memorandum dated 27.12.2024,
directing the petitioner to keep the recruitment on hold.
13. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 12957 /2024 impugning the
memorandum dated 03.08.2024 culminated in Judgment dated
08.05.2025, whereby the memorandum was quashed and the petitioner
School was allowed to proceed with recruitment but strictly in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Delhi School Education
Act and Rules, 1973 (“DSEAR”) .
14. The respondent/DoE again attempted to stop the recruitment process
by highlighting some discrepancies in its letter dated 18.07.2025.
However, the petitioner School purportedly proceeded in accordance
with the law laid down in various judicial pronouncements and issued
appointment letters dated 04.08.2025 to the recruited staff.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 3 of 31

15. The petitioner School replied to the letter dated 18.07.2025 and also
sent the appointment letters of twenty staff member for its processing
by the respondent so that the bills for their salaries could be generated.
16. The respondent/DoE has not responded to the aforesaid request for
issue of grant-in-aid and instead had arbitrarily issued a surprise
inspection order dated 09.10.2025 against the petitioner and other 23
aided minority schools.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
17. Mr. Chacko, learned senior counsel for the petitioner School, states
that this Hon’ble Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 12957/2024,
has granted permission to proceed with the recruitment process
initiated by advertisement dated 08.07.2024 and conduct the same
strictly in adherence to the provisions of DSEAR.
18. At the outset, all three impugned actions of the respondent/DoE i.e.,
the withholding of grant-in-aid, issuance of impugned Order dated
18.07.2025, and the direction for surprise inspections of the aided
minority schools including petitioner School, are vitiated by
arbitrariness and are taken with absolute malafide intent to render the
permission granted in W.P.(C) No. 12957/2024 infructuous.
19. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel, that in the present
case there are no allegations levelled against the petitioner School
regarding appointment of any staff member who does not meet the
qualification criteria prescribed by the State. It is also pointed out that
even in the order dated 18.07.2025, there is no observation or finding
to the effect that the newly recruited teachers are ineligible or fail to
satisfy the qualification criteria as laid down by the State.
20. Rule 73 read with Rule 74 of the DSEAR mandates different grants
which are essential for functioning of an aided school and the same
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 4 of 31

cannot be stopped unless it is found that the teachers appointed fail to
meet the qualification criteria fixed by the State.
21. He further contends that it is a settled position of law that DoE is
having no locus to interfere in the process of appointment by a
minority institution and consequently, no prior approval of the DoE is
required for recruitment of teachers as long as it is in strict compliance
of DSEAR and the appointed teachers fulfil the qualification criteria.
Reliance is placed on Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State
2 3
of Gujarat , ТMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka , Secy.,
4
Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose , Delhi Tamil Education
5
Assn. (Supra), Raisina Bengali School CR Park v. GNCTD &Ors. , St.
6
Anthony's Boys Secondary School v. Director Of Education and Ors.
22. It is also submitted that this Hon’ble Court in its interim Order dated
23.09.2025 passed in Delhi Tamil Education Association (Regd.) v.
7
Government of NCT of Delhi &Anr. , has sought an explanation as to
why the binding direction of this Court are not complied with by the
respondent/DoE. It is clear that the respondent/DoE can only highlight
the deficiencies qua qualifications of the appointees and any other
matter which falls within its jurisdiction concerning the recruitment
process.
23. Learned senior counsel by placing reliance on a catena of judicial
pronouncements submits that the right to administer a minority
educational institution as envisaged under Article 30 of the

2
(1974) 1 SCC 717.
3
(2002) 8 SCC 481.
4
(2007) 1 SCC 386.
5
W.P.(C) 4283/2024, Order dated 12.11.2024.
6
W.P.(C) 12957/2024.
7
W.P.(C) No. 14795/2025.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 5 of 31

Constitution of India includes the right to appoint its staff and the
management is free to choose from any qualified persons.
24. The direction issued by the respondent/DoE for conducting surprise
inspection of various schools including the petitioner School is
reflective of a vindictive approach, inasmuch as the order is directed
against all such schools who have availed their constitutional remedy
against the DoE by approaching this Court.
25. Moreover, the order dated 09.10.2025, is ultra vires as it contains no
averment as to lack of qualification or experience of any of the
candidates appointed by any of the 24 schools as stated therein.
26. Reliance is placed on Rule 96 of Delhi School Education Rules to
state that the scheme of the DSEAR is such that it accords absolute
liberty to the aided minority school to recruit its teachers and
employees free from state interference as Rule 96(3) states that the
staff has to be appointed by the selection committee and the state
cannot make any law or regulation controlling the selection or
appointment except to the extent of prescribing qualification criteria
for the post.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
27. At the outset, Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondent/DoE,
states that the present petition is sans merit as the impugned action and
orders passed by the respondent/DoE are totally in terms and in
accordance with the Order of this Court dated 08.05.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 12957/2024.
28. The recruitment process on the basis of which grant-in-aid is claimed
for the newly recruited staff members is in itself vitiated for the reason
of being in contravention to the DSEAR and applicable
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 6 of 31

circulars/orders/notifications issued by the respondent/DoE from time
to time.
29. She states that the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the
judgment of Delhi Tamil Education Assn. (Supra) are not applicable in
the factual matrix of the present case as the judgment does not
substantiate the proposition that the minority aided schools can recruit
teaching as well as non-teaching staff by evading the prescribed
procedure laid down under DSEAR and by applicable
circulars/notifications/orders issued by the respondent.
30. Further, the question for consideration before this Court in the case of
Delhi Tamil Education Assn. (Supra) was limited to the extent of the
necessity of prior clearance required from the DoE before filling the
vacancies of teachers and principals, which was answered in negative
making a restrictive observation that no prior approval of DoE is
required. However, in the present case the question is qua the legality
of the advertisement issued by the petitioner School. Thus, the
observations noted in Delhi Tamil Education Assn. (Supra) will not
apply to the facts of the present case.
31. This Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 12957/2024, categorically
made an observation that if the respondent/DoE finds any
contravention of the DESAR, the said judgment will not preclude it
from taking actions in accordance with law and the advertisement
dated 08.07.2024 issued by the petitioner School is in contravention of
circular/order dated 03.02.2006 and 04.02.2021.
32. She further contends that the petitioner School has followed its own
marking scheme adopted vide resolution No. 2/2025 instead of
conducting recruitment process in accordance with the marking
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 7 of 31

scheme issued by the respondent/DoE vide orders dated 26.02.2014
and 24.03.2014.
33. In formulating and applying its own marking scheme, the petitioner
School relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this
8
Court in the case titled as Kiran Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi) , wherein
it was held that the marking scheme circulars issued by the DoE
cannot be applied to minority institutions. However, the petitioner
School erred in overlooking the Order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the
9
Hon’ble Supreme Court in GNCTD and Anr. v. Kiran Jain and Anr. ,
wherein a categorical observation was made that the question of
legality of the circular dated 26.02.2014 does not stand decided and
the same was left open for decision in appropriate cases. Thus, the
circular dated 26.02.2014 prescribing a marking scheme holds good in
law until it is quashed.
34. She also states that Mr. Vincent James had been appointed for the post
of librarian despite being overage by 8 months for the said position, as
the maximum age limit for direct recruits to the said post is 30 years.
The selection committee of the petitioner School illegally relaxed the
8 months overage defect and proceeded to recommend him by placing
reliance on circulars dated 03.05.1976 and 21.01.2011, without taking
any approval from DOE. The said circulars do not contemplate any
relaxation unilaterally by the school or the selection committee.
35. Ms. Ahlawat places reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v.
10
Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College and Ors . , to contend that the
aided minority institutions like in the present case do not enjoy

8
2023 SCC OnLine Del 6353.
9
SLP(C) diary No. 16483/2024.
10
(2021) 15 SCC 600.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 8 of 31

unfettered rights against State regulations and the minority aided
institutions cannot claim a right wider in connotation than the
similarly placed non-minority aided institutions. Thus, the
respondent/DoE cannot be ousted totally from the recruitment process.

36. Reliance is also placed on S.K. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee
11
Contai Rahamanai High Madrasah &Ors. , to argue that in that
judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the
West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008, dealing with
selection of teachers as the same would not only serve the national
interest but also interest of minority institutions. The same cannot be
said to be a transgression of the constitutionally guaranteed right or
interference with the affairs of minority institution. Reliance is also
placed on State of Gujarat &Ors. v. H.B. Kapadia Education Trust &
12
Anr. .
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
37. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
38. From a Conspectus of the factual matrix as explained above, it is clear
that the recruitment process was conducted by the petitioner School
pursuant to the judgment dated 08.05.2025 of this Court in earlier
round litigation being W.P.(C) No. 12957/2024 titled as St Anthonys
Boys Secondary School v. Director of Education and Ors.. In the said
judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this Court relied on the judgment of
Delhi Tamil Education Assn (Supra) and of the Hon’ble Division
Bench in an LPA against the said judgment titled as The Lt. Governor
of Delhi & Ors. v. Delhi Tamil Education Association (Retd)

11
(2020) 6 SCC 689.
12
(2023) 19 SCC 578.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 9 of 31

13
Through Its Secretary to quash the memorandum impugned therein
dated 03.08.2024 and to allow the petitioner School to conduct the
recruitment process strictly in accordance with the provisions of
DSEAR and in case of any contravention of the applicable provisions,
liberty was granted to DoE to initiate action in accordance with law.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of St Anthonys Boys
Secondary School (Supra) reads as under:
“5. The decision of the learned Single Judge in Delhi Tamil
Education Association has been placed on record. It
concerns the process of recruitment in a linguistic minority
school. In paragraph 41 therein, the learned Single Judge
formulated the issue, as to whether the clearance from the
DoE was necessary to fill the vacancies of teachers and
Principal, or whether the vacancies could be filled without
such clearance. After consideration of the Delhi School
Education Act and Rules, 1973 [“DSEAR”], the Court
recorded the following conclusions:
“47.1 These provisions, even by themselves, would
conclude the issue in controversy. The statutory
position that emerges from Rule 98(2) read with the
proviso thereto, juxtaposed with Rule 96 of the DSE
Rules, is that the vacant posts of principal and
teachers in the schools run by the petitioner
association can be filled by the managing committee
of the petitioner association without prior approval
of the Director. Even if the selection committee,

13
LPA 642/2024, decided on 22.07.2024.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 10 of 31

which selects the employees for appointment to the
said posts, is required to include certain nominees of
the DoE, those nominees perform a mere advisory
role and do not participate in the actual exercise of
selection of the persons to be appointed.
47.2 Even on the basis of the afore-noted provisions
of the DSE Act and DSE Rules, therefore, there can
be no embargo on the petitioner filling up the vacant
posts of principal and teachers in the schools run by
it. No prior approval of the DoE is needed. At the
highest, all that can be said is that the selection
committee which makes such appointments would
require the participation of nominees of the DoE in
accordance with the Rule 96(3)(a) and 96(3)(b) of
the DSE Rules. Needless to say, the DoE would
necessarily have to nominate persons as part of the
selection committee, so that these posts can be filled.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
49.4.6 In any event that cannot constitute a
legitimate ground on the basis of which the DoE can
refuse the request of the petitioner to fill in the
vacancies of Principals and Teachers in the schools
run by it. As no prior approval of the DoE is
required, therefore, the decision dated 1 December
2023 is also unsustainable in law
xxxx xxxx xxxx
50. It is accordingly held that the petitioner is
entitled to make appointments against the vacant
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 11 of 31

posts of Principals and teachers in the schools run
by it without prior approval of the DoE. The
Selection Committee would, however, be constituted
in accordance with the Rule 96(3)(a) of the DSE
Rules in the case of Principals and 96(3)(b) in the
case of teachers, subject to the role of the nominees
of the DoE being restricted in terms of Rule 96(3-
3
A).”
6. Contrary to the contents of the impugned memorandum
dated 03.08.2024, by the time it was issued, the Division
Bench had, in fact, already disposed of the appeal against
the aforesaid judgment. The judgment of the Division Bench
in The Lt. Governor of Delhi &Ors. v. Delhi Tamil
4
Education Association (Retd) Through Its Secretary has
also been placed on record. The appeal was also decided
against the DoE, albeit on slightly different grounds. The
conclusions of the Division Bench are as follows:
“15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we too hold
that the letter/ communication dated 1st December,
2023, is unsustainable. However, we bind the
respondent/Society to the statement made by Mr.
Romy Chacko, learned counsel on the issue of
strictly following the provisions of Rule 96 (3) of
DSE Rules, 1973. We also reiterate the directions
passed by the learned Single Judge in para no. 50 of
the impugned judgement
16. In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, we
find no reason, much less any cogent reason to
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 12 of 31

interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the present appeal
5
is dismissed without any order as to costs.”
7. DoE has thereafter taken the matter to the Supreme Court
in SLP(C) 28295/2024. By order dated 06.12.2024, the
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
8. The judgment in Delhi Tamil Education Association,
therefore, holds the field. The impugned memorandum was
premised only on the basis (albeit erroneously) that the LPA
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was
pending. This basis has since been negated, as the judgment
has been affirmed by the Division Bench, and the SLP has
been dismissed.
9. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent, draws my attention to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing
6
Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Ors.,
and State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Principal Abhay
7
Nandan Inter College and Ors. to contend that the scope
of regulation by the DoE, even in respect of minority
institutions, is wider than contemplated in the judgment of
Delhi Tamil Education Association.
10. As far as this aspect is concerned, I am of the view that
such contention is not open to the DoE. The submissions of
the DoE, based upon Rafique and Abhay Nandan Inter
College, are both noted by the learned Single Judge in Delhi
Tamil Education Association as mentioned below:
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 13 of 31

“49.3.4 Mr. Jain seeks to submit that opening
sentence in para 31 of the decision in Abhay Nandan
Inter College itself eviscerates the distinction
between an aided minority institution and aided
nonminority institution. Para 32 goes on to observe
that an aided institution is expected to comply with
the conditions subject to which aid is granted. Para
33 further observes that “haze between a minority
and non-minority institution is no longer in
existence.
49.3.5 The reliance by Mr. Yeeshu Jain on these
observations of the Supreme Court is, however,
myopic. The decision goes on, in express terms, to
approve the principle, in T.M.A. Pai that the
regulatory power of the State over aided minority
institutions does not extend to compromising on
right of the minority to establish and administer the
institution. The principle that grant of aid can also
not be subjected to conditions which prejudices the
said right also finds approval in para 34 of Abhay
Nandan Inter College. In para 33, the Supreme
Court has relied, inter alia, on para 42.1 of its
earlier decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique in which the
Supreme Court reiterated the observation in T.M.A.
Pai that the right to appoint staff, teaching and non-
teaching, and the right to take disciplinary action
against the staff were among the essential incidents
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 14 of 31

to establish and administer an educational
institution.
49.3.6 The judgment in Abhay Nandan Inter College
cannot, therefore be regarded as diluting the
principles contained in Frank Anthony Public School
Employees‟ Association, Malankara Syrian Catholic
College and Sindhi Education Society.”
In fact, the judgment of the Division Bench also refers to the
DoE‟s reliance on Rafique.
11. In view of the above, the petitioner‟s challenge to the
memorandum dated 03.08.2024 must be sustained.
12. Mr. Romy Chacko, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon a subsequent
Division Bench judgment in Kiran Jain v. Govt. of NCT of
8
Delhi and Ors. , which, according to him, restricts the scope
of regulation concerning recruitment by minority
educational institutions. Ms. Ahlawat submits that this
judgment was also carried to the Supreme Court in SLP(C)
25294/2024. While the Supreme Court declined to interfere
with the Division Bench judgment, she points out that it left
open the issue concerning the validity of the DoE‟s circular
dated 26.02.2014 prescribing a marking scheme and
evaluation process for recruitment of teachers.
13. However, I am of the view that the aforesaid issue does
arise for determination in this writ petition. The challenge
of the petitioner herein is against the memorandum dated
03.08.2024, which is not predicated on compliance or non-
compliance with the 2014 Circular.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 15 of 31

14. As before the Division Bench in The Lt. Governor of
Delhi &Ors. v. Delhi Tamil Education Association (Retd)
9
Through Its Secretary , Mr. Chacko undertakes on behalf of
the present petitioner that the School will strictly follow the
provisions of the DSEAR, insofar as they are applicable,
while carrying out the proposed recruitment. He submits
that the matter has reached emergent proportions, as the
School now has twenty-one vacancies out of a total faculty
strength of thirty-six.
15. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by
setting aside the memorandum dated 03.08.2024. The
petitioner is, thus, permitted to proceed with recruitment,
pursuant to the advertisement issued on 08.07.2024 and/or
by issuing a fresh recruitment advertisement, but subject to
the submission recorded above, to proceed strictly in
accordance with the applicable provisions of DSEAR.
16. Needless to say, if the DoE finds that there is any other
noncompliance by the School, this judgment will not
preclude it from taking steps in accordance with law,
subject to the petitioner‟s rights and remedies.
17. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”
39. Ms. Ahlawat, has also drawn my attention to the fact that a person
namely, Mr. Vincent James had been appointed by the petitioner
School as librarian despite being overage by 8 months for the said
position as the maximum age limit this position is 30 years. The said
qualifying criteria was relaxed by placing reliance on circulars dated
03.05.1976 and 21.01.2011, without taking any necessary approval
from the DoE.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 16 of 31

40. To this objection raised by the respondent/DoE, Mr. Chacko, learned
senior counsel, states that the said limited discrepancy will be looked
into and the ineligible staff as stated by the respondent/DoE will be
removed by taking appropriate actions.

41. Additionally, qualifications of no other staff members as appointed by
the petitioner School are questioned by the respondent/DoE in
response to the said petition.
42. The core submission of Ms. Ahlawat, learned counsel for the
respondent/DoE, against the present petition is that the marking
scheme which is adopted and used by the petitioner School in order to
conduct the recruitment process is in contravention and total ignorance
of a prescribed marking scheme provided by the DoE vide its order
dated 26.02.2014. My attention has also been drawn to a facilitative
table of comparison provided by the respondent/DoE in paragraph No.
12 of its Counter Affidavit, which is important and is reproduced as
under:
A. For T.G.T. (Trained Graduate Teacher)
C omponent
DoE
Order
dated
26.02.20
14
School MC
Marking
Scheme(Resolutio
n. No.
2/2025)
Secondary/
Cl.10
Not
specified
Not specified
Sr.Secondary
/Cl.12
10 10
Graduation 30 20
Post
Graduation
Nil
(counted
in Addl.
Qual.)
10(separate head)
B.Ed. 20 15
CTET/ 15 10
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 17 of 31

Outstanding
Additional
Qualification
10 Nil
Teaching
Experience
10 5
„Christian
Minority‟
Criterion
NIL 10 marks
Interview
Marks
05 20
Grand Total 100 100

B. For Librarian
Component DoE
Order
dated
26.02.
2014
School MC
Marking
Scheme(Res
olution No.
2/2025)
Sr. Secondary 15 10
Graduation(B.A./B.Co
m/
B.Sc.)
30 15
B.Lib 30 15
Additional
Qualification (M.Lib.
only)
10 15(separate
head)
Outstanding/Diploma/
Certificate in Comp.
Course
NIL 10
Experience(Librarian
only)
10 5
'Christian Minority'
Criterion
NIL 10 marks
Interview Marks 05 20
Grand Total 100 100

C. For LDC/Junior Assistant
Component DoE Order
dated
24.03.2014
School MC
Marking
Scheme
(Resolution
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 18 of 31

No. 2/2025)
Secondary/Cl. 10 30 20
Sr.Secondary/Cl.
12
15 30
Typing/Computer 30 Nil
Graduation Nil 10
Outstanding/
Computer
Diploma
Nil(Addl.
Qual.=10)
5
Additional
Qualification
10 Nil
Experience 10 5
'Christian
Minority'
Criterion
NIL 10 marks
Interview Marks 05 20
Grand Total 100 100

D. For Lab. Assistant
Component DQE
Order
dated
24.03,2014
School MC
Marking
Scheme
(Resolution
No. 2/2025)
Secondary/Cl.
10
30 20
Sr. Secondary
(Science w/
practical)
45 30
Additional
Qual.
(B.Sc.
Phy/Chem/Bio)
10 Nil/Subsumed
Graduation Nil 10
Outstanding /
Computer
Diploma
Nil 5
Experience (as
Lab.
Asst.)
10 5
'Christian NIL 10 marks
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 19 of 31

Minority'
Criterion
Interview
Marks
05 20
Grand Total 100 100

E. For Assistant Teacher
Component DQE
Order
dated
26.02.201
4
School
MC
Marking
Scheme
(Resolutio
n
No.2/2025
)
Secondary/Cl.10 10 10
Sr. Secondary/ Cl.
12
20 20
JBT/ETT 30 15
Graduation
(Addl.Qualification
)
10 10
Post-Graduation NIL NIL
CTET /
Outstanding
15 10
Teaching
Experience
10 5
'Christian
Minority' Criterion
NIL 10 marks
Interview Marks 05 20
Grand Total 100 100

43. A selection made in contravention of the circular dated 26.02.2014
(marking scheme) was the subject matter of another petition bearing
W.P.(C) No. 10549/2018 titled as Kiran Jain v. Government of NCT
of Delhi & Ors. , wherein the learned Single judge dismissed the
petition but the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reversed the said
decision in Kiran Jain (Supra) holding that prescription of a marking
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 20 of 31

scheme is undoubtedly an interference with the constitutionally
guaranteed right of minority institutions as envisaged and protected by
virtue of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The relevant
paragraphs highlighting the observations of the Hon’ble Division
Bench in Kiran Jain (Supra) reads as under:
“58. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Circular issued by Respondent No. 2 has inherently
interfered with the management's control over Respondent
No. 3 to the extent that the State would effectively wield an
all-pervasive control over the selection of teachers of an
aided minority institution. The Circular by prescribing the
marking scheme, has resulted in the State transgressing
from prescription of the eligibility standards and/or
requisite qualifications to also then decide the ranking of
qualified persons and impliedly exercise control over the
selection and appointment of qualified persons which would
be contrary to settled law. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly held the selection and appointment of qualified
teachers to be an intrinsic limb of the autonomy of a
minority educational institution and its rights enshrined
under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Moreover,
the Circular would then give the DoE the ability to test
propriety or rationality of the process of choice qua the
appointment of a qualified candidate which the Supreme
Court and this Court has held to be an independent process,
free from even judicial scrutiny.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 21 of 31

59. Furthermore, a coordinate bench of this Court in Queen
Mary's School, (Supra) clarified that aided minority schools
shall adhere to inter alia recruitment rules and other
general norms to the extent they prescribe qualifications,
experience, age and other such criteria for appointment (as
they are regulatory).
60. Therefore, following the principles of law culled out
above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Ld. Single
Judge has erred in dismissing the Writ Petition by failing to
appreciate that the prescription of a marking
scheme/evaluation matrix must undoubtedly be viewed as
interference with the manner of selection of qualified
candidates and not merely the prescription of minimum
standards of teaching in furtherance of an ever evolving and
dynamic education system. Accordingly, the Circular and its
rigors cannot be applied to a minority institution such as
Respondent No. 3 under the garb of a regulatory framework
as the Circular and the actions following from the Circular
would directly impinge on the rights of a minority institution
which is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India and, accordingly, free to evolve its own marking
scheme/evaluation matrix to evaluate qualified candidates.
61. Accordingly, as we find in favor of the Appellant on all
counts, the Impugned Judgment of the Ld. Single Judge is
hereby set aside and the LPAs are allowed.
62. The Appellant/Ms. Kiran Jain shall be entitled for
appointment by virtue of the appointment letter dated
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 22 of 31

18.12.2017 and shall be treated in service from the date she
reported on duty i.e., 16.01.2018. The Appellant shall also
be entitled for seniority, notional fixation of salary,
increments and all consequential benefits except backwages.
The Respondent GNCTD/DoE is also directed to release the
grant-in-aid in respect of the post in question.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 22.10.2024 passed in
a Special Leave Petition bearing diary No. 16483/2024, disposed of
the SLP against the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment in Kiran Jain
(Supra) by making the following categorical observation, which reads
as under:
3. It is submitted that Circular dated 26.02.2014 issued by
the Directorate of Education was not challenged before the
High Court by raising specific grounds in the writ petition.
This fact is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
4. While we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment
of the High Court with respect to the relief granted to the
respondents herein, we keep the question of law about the
legality and validity of the Circular dated 26.02.2014 open
for being considered in an other appropriate case(s). We
also note the fact that there is no other employee or
candidate who is contesting the appointment of respondent
no.1.
5. With above observations, the Special Leave Petition is
disposed of.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 23 of 31

(Emphasis Supplied)
45. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
question of validity of the circular dated 26.02.2014 remains open for
adjudication, it is the respondent’s case that the validity and
applicability of the said marking scheme was upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and hence the resolution No. 2/2025 passed by the
petitioner School is illegal and invalid for being in clear contravention
of the said circular.
46. To my mind, the said submission of the respondent cannot be
sustained as the disposal of an SLP, when leave is not granted but
some categorical observations are made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to the effect that the question of validity is left open for
adjudication, does not by any implication mean that the validity of the
said circular is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
47. The validity of the circular dated 26.02.2014, does not form the core
of the issue and the controversy raised in the present petition lies
under a very narrow and limited compass. Moreover, the petitioner
School is also ready and willing to file an affidavit within two weeks
from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, undertaking that in
case the validity of the circular dated 26.02.2014 is upheld, the
petitioner will return back the entire amount received by the
respondent/DoE towards grant-in-aid within four weeks thereafter.
48. The facilitative comparison chart as reproduced above, to my mind,
shows that the petitioner School has not made any compromise or
affected the standards of teaching staff and other staff sought to be
appointed by them as adequate marks have been assigned to the
academic qualifications and experience.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 24 of 31

49. It is now a settled position of law that minority institutions have the
right to appoint their staff as per their discretion/satisfaction and no
prior approval of DoE is required for the said appointments as long as
the persons appointed by the minority institutions fulfil the criteria of
qualification and experience as prescribed by the DoE. This position
was settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment of
Delhi Tamil Education Assn. (Supra) in the following words:
“49.4. Applying the law to the facts
49.4.1. When the above principles are applied to the facts
on hand, the conclusion is inescapable. The petitioner, as an
aided minority institution has an absolute right to appoint
the persons whom the petitioner chooses, as Principal,
teachers and other staff, in the educational institutions run
by it. No prior permission or approval of the DoE is
required. The extent of regulation by the DoE is limited to
prescribing qualifications and experience of the Principals
and teachers. So long as the Principals and teachers who
are appointed possess the prescribed qualifications and
experience, there can be no restriction whatsoever on the
right of the petitioner to make appointments to fill in the
vacancies in the schools run by it.
49.4.2. The grant of aid, by the State, to the minority
institution, makes no substantial difference to this legal
position. At the highest, the State can regulate the proper
utilization of the aid which it grants. It cannot subjugate the
minority educational institution to its dictates in the matter
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 25 of 31

of appointment of teachers, or Principals, on the pretext
that it has granted aid to the institution.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
50. The aforesaid judgment has also attained finality as the challenge
against the said judgment has been taken by the DoE before the
14 15
Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court , and the
said challenges have been rejected at both the instances.

51. The right to appointment of teachers and staff (without compromising
their educational qualifications and relevant experience) forms an
integral part of right to manage/administer the minority institution by
the minority as guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of
India.
52. The respondent/DoE in the present petition also places reliance on
Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College (Supra) , more particularly on
its paragraph Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 36 to contend that the aided minority
institutions do not enjoy unfettered right against State regulations and
the minority aided institutions cannot claim a right wider in
connotation than the similarly placed non-minority aided institutions
and the respondent/DoE cannot be ousted totally from the recruitment
process. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment reads as
under:
“Minority and non-minority
31. When it comes to aided institutions, there cannot be any
difference between a minority and non-minority one. Article
30 of the Constitution of India is subject to its own
restrictions being reasonable. A protection cannot be

14
LPA 642/2024, decided on 22.07.2024.
15
SLP(C) 28295/2024, Order dated 06.12.2024
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 26 of 31

expanded into a better right than one which a non-minority
institution enjoys. Law has become quite settled on this
issue and therefore does not require any elaboration.
32. Thus, on the aforesaid issue we have no hesitation in
reiterating the principle that an institution receiving aid is
bound by the conditions imposed and therefore expected to
comply. Once we hold so, the challenge made on various
grounds, falls to the ground.
33. The haze between a minority and non-minority
institution is no longer in existence. This Court in Sk. Mohd.
Rafique [Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. ContaiRahamania High
Madrasah, (2020) 6 SCC 689] has dealt with the same
through the following paragraphs : (SCC pp. 782, 785, 787
& 793, paras 41-43 & 59). …”
53. From a conspectus of the paragraph No. 49.3 and more particularly
paragraph Nos. 49.3.4 and 49.3.6 of Delhi Tamil Education Assn.
(Supra), it is clear to my mind that the said contention as raised herein
by the respondent/DoE were already taken into due consideration by
the learned single judge and I am in complete agreement with the
views of the learned single judge. Thus, the contention of the
respondent is misconceived, unfounded and a mere reiteration of
submission already adjudicated. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment read as under:
“49.3. Abhay Nandan Inter College
…
49.3.4. Mr. Jain seeks to submit that opening sentence in
para 31 of the decision in Abhay Nandan Inter College itself
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 27 of 31

eviscerates the distinction between an aided minority
institution and aided non-minority institution. Para 32 goes
on to observe that an aided institution is expected to comply
with the conditions subject to which aid is granted. Para 33
further observes that “haze between a minority and non-
minority institution is no longer in existence.”
49.3.5. The reliance by Mr. Yeeshu Jain on these
observations of the Supreme Court is, however, myopic. The
decision goes on, in express terms, to approve the principle,
in T.M.A. Pai that the regulatory power of the State over
aided minority institutions does not extend to compromising
on right of the minority to establish and administer the
institution. The principle that grant of aid can also not be
subjected to conditions which prejudices the said right also
finds approval in para 34 of Abhay Nandan Inter College.
In para 33, the Supreme Court has relied, inter alia, on
para 42.1 of its earlier decision in Sk. Mohd. Rafique in
which the Supreme Court reiterated the observation
in T.M.A. Pai that the right to appoint staff, teaching and
non-teaching, and the right to take disciplinary action
against the staff were among the essential incidents to
establish and administer an educational institution.
49.3.6. The judgment in Abhay Nandan Inter
College cannot, therefore be regarded as diluting the
principles contained in Frank Anthony Public School
Employees' Association, Malankara Syrian Catholic
College and Sindhi Education Society.”
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 28 of 31

54. My attention has also been drawn to a challenge preferred by the DoE
by way of an LPA bearing No. 372/2025 against an Order of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12.11.2024 passed in writ
petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 4283/2024, titled as Raisina Bengali
School C R Park v. Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and
Ors , wherein the petition was allowed after taking into consideration
the scope and necessity of composition of recruitment committees as
contemplated under Rule 96 of the DSEAR. In the said LPA, the
Hon’ble Division Bench vide its Order dated 03.02.2026 has referred
the matter to a larger bench for consideration on the substantial
questions of law framed therein, which read as under:
I. “Whether the exemption granted to minority institution
under Section 12 of the DSE Act stood nullified, making
Chapter VIII of DSE Rules applicable to all minority
schools whether aided or unaided?
II. Whether the Director of Education retains any legitimate
interest in overseeing the process of the recruitment as
per Rule 96 of the DSE Rules and ensuring that the
process remains transparent, fair and free from
corruption?
III. Can a government aided minority institution claim
absolute autonomy and complete immunity from
reasonable regulatory measures in the matters of public
employment when substantial aid is received from the
government?
IV. Whether the decision in Queen Mary‟s School (supra)
was dealing with limited question of whether minority
aided schools were required to adopt the exact
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 29 of 31

composition of Recruitment Committees as prescribed in
Rule 96 of the DSE Rules and did not hold that the
Director of Education has no regulatory authority over
the recruitment process in such institutions?

V. Whether the constitutional balance between the rights of
the minority institution under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution of India, 1950 and the legitimate regulatory
authority of the State under Article 30(2) of the
Constitution of India, 1950 permits oversight from the
Director of Education for recruitment in government
aided minority schools to ensure public interest, quality
of education and financial accountability?”
55. While adjudicating the present matter, this Court, no doubt, can await
the outcome of the reference to the larger bench (in LPA No.
372/2025) but that would mean 19 (20-Mr.Vincent James, librarian)
employees would be working in the petitioner School without any
salary. Thus, the said course of action would adversely affect their
right to life and livelihood.
56. In this view of the matter, the present judgment shall be subject to the
Orders that may be passed in the reference made by the Hon’ble
Division Bench in LPA 372/2025.
CONCLUSION
57. The settled position of law as it stands today is that no restrictions/no
criteria other than prescribing qualifications and/or experience for
appointment of non-teaching and teaching staff can be prescribed by
the DoE qua the aided minority institutions.
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 30 of 31

58. Hence, the order dated 18.07.2025 directing the petitioner School to
withhold recruitment process cannot be sustained and is hereby
quashed.
59. However, there can be no restrictions on the respondent/DoE to
conduct any type of inspection of the Schools, in accordance with law.
60. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and disposed of with the
following directions:
I. The concerned authorized representative of the petitioner
School shall file an affidavit within two weeks from the
date of pronouncement of this judgment, undertaking that
in case the validity of the circular dated 26.02.2014 is
upheld, the petitioner School will return back the entire
amount received by the respondent/DoE towards grant-in-
aid within four weeks thereafter.
II. Subject to completion of formalities by the petitioner, the
removal of the ineligible/unqualified staff (Mr. Vincent
James) and filing of the affidavit as detailed above, the
respondent/DoE’s contribution towards the salary of the
19 other staff members shall be released expeditiously
and not later than 4 weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment. Needless to state the
respondent/DoE shall continue to release the grant-in-aid
regularly.

JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 01, 2026/SS
Digitally Signed
By:SAHAJ PREET KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
18:09:07
W.P.(C) NO. 16805/2025 Page 31 of 31