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 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
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 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
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
