Delhi High Court - Orders
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi (Through Director Of ... vs Raisina Bengali School on 3 February, 2026
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 372/2025 & CM APPLs. 34805-07/2025
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI (THROUGH DIRECTOR OF
EDUCATION) AND ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Yeeshu Jain, ASC and Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Adv. with Mr. Mustaq Ali and
Mr. Tanveer Alam, LA, for DOE
Mr. Harshit Jain, (DANICS), Joint
Director and Mr. Rajeev Tanwar,
OSD (Litigation) for DOE
Versus
RAISINA BENGALI SCHOOL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Anukul Raj and Ms. Nikita Raj,
Mr. Tushar Bhalla, Mr. Naveen, Mr.
Vishal Yadav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 03.02.2026
1. The Appellants have filed the present Appeal against the order dated 12.11.2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4283/2024 ("Writ Petition") thereby allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent School holding that the Appellants have no authority to interdict the recruitment process initiated by the Respondent School by way of advertisement dated 09.01.2024, subject to the Respondent School complying with the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 ("DSE Rules").
2. The brief facts leading to the Appellants filing of the present Appeal are as under:
LPA 372/2025 Page 1 of 6This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:34:30 2.1 The Respondent School is a linguistic minority school established with the object to teach students of Bengali community in Delhi and was established by Raisina Bengali School Society, which is a charitable Society incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
2.2 The Respondent School, recognized by the Appellants in 1988, is a government aided school and receives 95% of its funding from the Appellants and the remaining 5% funds are contributed by the Respondent School itself and is thus governed by the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 ("DSE Act") and DSE Rules.
2.3 According to the Appellants, the Respondent School, as per the governing regulations, is required to adhere to the Rules and Regulations laid down under the DSE Act & DSE Rules besides the Rules and Guidelines set out by Directorate of Education ("DoE") for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff.
2.4 On 03.02.2006, the Appellants issued a Circular directing that all aided schools, including the Respondent School, must obtain clearance from the Appellants before initiating the process of recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in order to ensure fairness, transparency and merit in the recruitment process. This was further reinforced by an Order dated 04.02.2021, which required the Deputy Director of Education to provide prior approval at the district level before any recruitment advertisement were published.
2.5 On 08.12.2023, the Respondent School submitted a request for approval of direct recruitment to various teaching and non-teaching posts and issued an advertisement dated 09.01.2024 for recruitment of teaching LPA 372/2025 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:34:30 and non-teaching staff without obtaining the necessary prior approval from Appellants.
2.6 Appellants vide order dated 01.02.2024 rejected the Respondent School's request for approval to fill the teaching and non-teaching posts and directed the Respondent School to cease further actions in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09.01.2024 and to submit a compliance report within 07 days of the receipt of the order dated 01.02.2024.
2.7 The Respondent School challenged the order dated 01.02.2024 of the Appellants by filing the Writ Petition, which as aforesaid was allowed by the learned Single Judge by Impugned Order dated 12.11.2024 holding that the Appellants have no authority to interdict the recruitment process in minority-aided institutions, subject to compliance with DSE Rules.
2.8 Aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 12.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge, the Appellants have filed the present Appeal.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
4. The main grievance of the Appellants is that the Impugned Order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee Contai Rahamania High Madrasah, (2020) 6 SCC 689 and State of U.P. v Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College, (2021) 15 SCC 600, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the minority aided institution cannot claim absolute autonomy in recruitment when they receive substantial government aid.
5. The Appellants have also contended that the Impugned Order is in contravention to the Judgment dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Full Bench of LPA 372/2025 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:34:30 this Court in W.P.(C) No.8058/2011 titled Guru Harkrishan Public School v Director of Education & Anr., wherein the applicability of Rule 96 of the Rules on the minority schools has been upheld which applies to both aided and unaided minority institution, ensuring transparency and accountability in recruitment.
6. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the decision in Guru Harkrishan Public School (supra) relied upon the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Frank Anthony Public School Employee's Association v Union of India, (1986) 4 SCC 707, wherein it is held that exemption granted to minority institution under Section 12 of the DSE Act stood nullified thereby making Chapter VIII of the Rules applicable to both aided and unaided minority institutions.
7. The Appellants have submitted that the Impugned Order has relied upon the decision of this Court in Delhi Tamil Education Assn. v Director of Education, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4158 which is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lt. Governor of Delhi v Delhi Tamil Education Assn., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5076 and further Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said decision has been dismissed. According to the Appellants, the decision in Delhi Tamil Education (supra) was misplaced.
8. The Appellants contended that the reliance in the Impugned Order on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Queen Mary's School v Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4884 was also misplaced as the Impugned Order has disregarded the authoritative and binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Frank Anthony Public School Employee's LPA 372/2025 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:34:30 Association (supra) as well as the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Guru Harkrishan Public School (supra), which collectively affirmed the applicability of the Rule 96 of the Rules to minority aided schools.
9. Considering the above submissions made by the Appellants, we are of the opinion that this matter is required to be referred to Larger Bench in view of the decisions of Queen Mary's School (supra) as well as Delhi Tamil Education Assn. (supra) holding that Rule 96 of the Rules do not apply to minority aided schools, which is contrary to the law laid down in Frank Anthony Public School Employee's Association (supra) and Guru Harkrishan Public School (supra).
10. In view of the above, we formulate the following questions of law for consideration by the Larger Bench:
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?LPA 372/2025 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:34:30 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 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?
11. Accordingly, list before the Larger Bench on 13.03.2026, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2026 'gsr' LPA 372/2025 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 20:34:30