Legal Rule: Pending Policy Proposals Cannot Suspend Statutory Recruitment Rights of Aided Minority Educational Institutions

Petitioner No. 1 is a registered society managing Petitioner No. 2, a recognized aided minority school established in 1886

Since 2017, the school sought permission from the Directorate of Education (DoE) to fill vacant teaching and non-teaching posts within its sanctioned aided strength

The school’s staff had depleted to only four regular teachers and three support staff, jeopardizing its functioning

By communications dated 22nd September 2022 and 14th June 2023, the DoE refused permission, stating that a proposal to conduct recruitment for all aided schools through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) was "under consideration" and that vacant posts should be manned by guest teachers in the interim

The Petitioners challenged these communications as an infringement of their rights under Article 30(1) of the Constitution

1. Whether the Directorate of Education can indefinitely suspend recruitment in an aided minority school based solely on a pending proposal to change the recruitment mechanism to the DSSSB

2. Whether the right of a minority institution to appoint staff under Article 30(1) can be curtailed by executive instructions that have not yet acquired the force of law

The Court applied Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees minority institutions the right to administer educational institutions, including the selection of staff

It relied on Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, establishing that executive instructions cannot supersede or suspend the operation of existing statutory provisions

The Court acknowledged the State's power to impose reasonable regulations for educational standards and financial accountability as per Sk. Md. Rafique v. Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and State of U.P. v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College

Furthermore, it noted the procedural requirements of Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, concerning the composition of Selection Committees

The Court reasoned that the DoE’s refusal was not based on statutory non-compliance (such as lack of vacancies or incorrect rosters) but entirely on a "proposal under consideration" to involve the DSSSB

Applying the principle from Sant Ram Sharma, the Court held that a mere intent to change policy at an uncertain future date cannot acquire normative force or override the current statutory regime under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules

While the DoE expressed concerns regarding recruitment malpractices in other schools, the Court found that such general allegations cannot justify a blanket, indefinite prohibition on a specific school against which no malpractice was alleged

The Court also noted that while questions regarding the extent of DoE's regulatory authority are pending before a Larger Bench in GNCTD v. Raisina Bengali School, the immediate prejudice to the school’s functioning necessitated relief, provided the recruitment adheres to existing regulatory safeguards under Rule 96

The Court directed the Petitioners to submit an updated recruitment proposal within ten days. The DoE was ordered to process the proposal within two weeks and nominate members for the Selection Committees in accordance with Rule 96, without prejudice to the outcome of the pending Larger Bench reference. The recruitment must strictly comply with existing qualifications and roster requirements, and the process should ideally be concluded within eight weeks of receiving the DoE’s nominations