Aided minority institutions possess absolute autonomy in staff recruitment provided appointees meet prescribed qualification and experience criteria.

The petitioner, an aided Christian Minority Educational Institution, sought directions against the Respondent (DoE) to release grant-in-aid for 20 newly recruited staff members and challenged orders dated 18.07.2025 and 09.10.2025, which stayed recruitment and ordered surprise inspections.

Previously, the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 12957/2024 had quashed a memorandum staying the recruitment, allowing the school to proceed per the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR).

Despite this, the DoE issued fresh orders to withhold recruitment on the grounds that the school failed to follow the department's prescribed marking scheme (Circular dated 26.02.2014) and appointed an overage librarian.

1. Whether the Directorate of Education can mandate a specific marking scheme for the recruitment of staff in an aided minority institution.

2. Whether prior approval from the DoE is a prerequisite for appointments made by a minority institution.

3. Whether the respondent is entitled to withhold grant-in-aid based on the pending validity of the 2014 Marking Scheme Circular.

Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.

Principle from Delhi Tamil Education Assn. v. Director of Education, establishing that aided minority institutions have the absolute right to appoint qualified staff without prior DoE approval, provided they meet statutory qualifications.

Kiran Jain v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which held that prescribing a marking scheme interferes with the autonomy of minority management.

Supreme Court’s order in SLP (C) Diary No. 16483/2024, which left the legality of the 2014 Circular open but did not stay the High Court's findings on minority rights.

The court reasoned that the right to appoint staff is an "intrinsic limb" of minority autonomy under Article 30(1); the State's regulatory power is limited to prescribing minimum qualifications and experience.

It observed that the petitioner’s use of its own marking scheme (Resolution No. 2/2025) did not compromise teaching standards, as it still weighted academic merit and experience.

Although the DoE argued that the 2014 Circular remains valid because the Supreme Court left the question of law "open," the court held this did not amount to an affirmation of the Circular's validity.

The court noted that withholding salaries for 19 qualified teachers would violate their right to livelihood.

Regarding the overage librarian, the petitioner conceded to his removal, thus resolving that specific defect.

The court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking to return the grant-in-aid if the 2014 Circular is eventually upheld by a larger bench and ordered the DoE to release grant-in-aid for the remaining 19 staff members within four weeks, subject to the removal of the unqualified librarian.

The DoE's right to conduct inspections in accordance with the law was maintained.