Ms. Meenakshi Sharma And Ors vs Director Of Education And Ors on 14 May, 2026

May 21, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders

Ms. Meenakshi Sharma And Ors vs Director Of Education And Ors on 14 May, 2026

1. These two writ petitions arise from the same institutional dispute, the
same school, the same set of teachers, and the same order of the Directorate
of Education. A separate decision in either petition would leave the other
incomplete. In W.P.(C) 13158/2021, Dr. S.R.S. Mission School assails the
order dated 25th July, 2018 passed by the Directorate of Education. In
W.P.(C) 9915/2018, three teachers seek enforcement of that very order. The
legality of the order and the enforceability of the directions contained in it
are thus two sides of the same controversy. Therefore, they have been heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

SPONSORED

2. For convenience, W.P.(C) 13158/2021 is referred to as “the school’s
petition” and W.P.(C) 9915/2018 as “the teachers’ petition”.
Factual background

3. Dr. S.R.S. Mission School, B-1, Janakpuri, New Delhi, is a
recognised unaided school governed by the Delhi School Education Act,
1973 and the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. The school is affiliated to
the Central Board of Secondary Education. There is no dispute that, though
unaided, the school is bound by the regulatory discipline of the Act and
Rules.

4. The dispute concerns three teachers, namely Ms. Meenakshi Sharma,
Ms. Sunita Tuteja and Ms. Shikha Gupta. Their cases are connected, but not
identical. A brief factual snapshot may assist:

                                                     Post                                                       School's
                                   Name                                    Relevant engagement
                                                     claimed/held                                               description




                          W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021                                                      Page 2 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
Appointment document
Ms. Contractual
dated 26th June, 2016,
Meenakshi PGT (Hindi) assignment on
period 28th June, 2016 to
Sharma consolidated salary
31st May, 2017
PRT/Assistant
Engagements shown
Teacher, also Ad-hoc/contractual
Ms. Sunita from 2010 onward,
NCC-related appointment,
Tuteja relieved on 15th May,
duties consolidated salary
2017
claimed
Appointment document
Ms. Contractual
PRT/Assistant dated 25th June, 2016,
Shikha assignment on
Teacher period 28th June, 2016 to
Gupta consolidated salary
31st May, 2017

5. The school issued an advertisement in May, 2016 for several teaching
and non-teaching posts, including PGTs, TGTs, Assistant Teachers, Music
Teacher, PET and Receptionist. The advertisement did not describe the posts
as contractual. It invited applications and stated that salary was negotiable.

6. On 20th May, 2016, a decision was recorded by the school to
constitute a Staff Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 96(3)(b) of
the DSEAR. The decision refers to applications received pursuant to the
advertisement and states that the final approval on appointments was to be
placed before the Managing Committee in its next meeting.

7. The minutes of the Managing Committee dated 24th June, 2016
occupy a central place in the teachers’ case. They record that applications
had been received, interviews were held on different dates depending upon
the availability of the members of the Staff Selection Committee, and new
teachers were appointed. The minutes further state that some were given
regular appointment and others contractual appointment so that their
performance could remain under observation and, if found satisfactory, their
services may be regularised after completion of the contractual period.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 3 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56

8. The school disputes the legal effect and authenticity of the said
minutes. It contends that the document is not borne out from the school
record, contains internal contradictions, and cannot be treated as proof of
regular appointment. It also says that an FIR was lodged in relation to the
document. This Court is not deciding the authenticity of those minutes. It is
sufficient to notice that they form the core factual foundation of the
teachers’ plea that the contractual form did not reflect the true character of
their appointment.

9. The appointment documents issued to Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and
Ms. Shikha Gupta, however, use a different vocabulary. Ms. Meenakshi
Sharma’s document is titled “Contractual Assignment”. It appoints her as
PGT (Hindi) for the period 28th June, 2016 to 31st May, 2017, on
consolidated remuneration of INR 22,000 per month. It states that she would
not be entitled to allowances applicable to regular teachers and that the
assignment could be withdrawn without assigning reasons. Ms. Shikha
Gupta’s appointment document is materially similar, though the post and
remuneration differ.

10. The teachers did not let the matter rest there. On 4 th July, 2016, they
submitted a representation alleging that they had been selected through the
regular process under Rule 96(3)(b), but the school had issued contractual/ad
hoc appointment letters. This was followed by further representations in
2017. The early protest is a relevant circumstance. It weakens the school’s
plea that the teachers accepted the contractual label without demur. Equally,
it does not by itself establish regular appointment. It only shows that the
dispute arose at the inception and not after the contract period expired.

11. Ms. Sunita Tuteja stands on a different factual footing. The record

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 4 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
placed before the Court shows appointment as teacher from June, 2010,
extensions, later engagements, and her claim of having discharged duties
connected with NCC activities. A relieving order dated 15 th May, 2017
records that she was working on temporary basis on consolidated salary of
INR 17,000 per month and stood relieved with effect from 15 th May, 2017.
The school relies on this document to say that she accepted full and final
settlement. Ms. Tuteja disputes the legal effect of such documentation and
claims that her long service cannot be reduced to an ordinary fixed-term
arrangement.

12. On 28th September, 2017, the Deputy Director of Education issued a
show-cause notice to the school. The notice records the complaint of four
teachers, namely Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Ms. Garima Arora, Ms. Jyotsana
and Ms. Shikha Gupta, alleging that while the Staff Selection Committee
had been constituted for regular appointments, contractual/ad hoc
appointment letters had been issued. The notice further records that the
inquiry committee had substantiated the complaint. The school was called
upon to show cause why action under the relevant provisions of the DSEAR
should not be initiated.

13. On 4th December, 2017, the Directorate of Education passed an order.
The order records that complaints had been received regarding lapses in the
functioning of the school, including alleged flouting of recruitment rules, ad
hoc/contractual appointments and discontinuance of teachers without reason.
The order refers to the inquiry report and records, inter alia, that Ms. Sunita
Tuteja had been working in the school since 2010 either on ad hoc or
contractual basis. It further states that private unaided recognised schools
cannot make ad hoc appointments against regular posts and relies upon

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 5 of 20

This is a digitally signed order.

14. The operative direction in the order dated 4 th December, 2017
required the school to restore the services of the Petitioner-teachers and
other similarly placed teaching/non-teaching employees whose services had
been discontinued on the basis of contractual/ad hoc appointment, if they
fulfilled the educational qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules for the
posts to which they had been appointed. The school was also directed to
grant them benefits under Section 10(1) of the DSEA and not to appoint
teachers/employees on ad hoc/contract basis in future.

15. The teachers filed W.P.(C) 1033/2018 seeking compliance of the
order dated 4th December, 2017. During the hearing, the school informed
this Court that it had already challenged the said order before DoE.
Accordingly, by order dated 25th April, 2018, this Court directed DoE to
consider the school’s challenge to the Deputy Director’s order dated 4 th
December, 2017 and to pass a speaking order within twelve weeks. The
order expressly left the aggrieved party to avail remedies as available in law.

16. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Education passed the order dated 25 th
July, 2018, which is impugned in the school’s petition and sought to be
enforced in the teachers’ petition. The order substantially maintained the
earlier direction for restoration of services of the named employees, again
subject to their fulfilling educational qualifications under the Recruitment
Rules. It also dealt with the appointment of Ms. Jyoti Kapoor as Principal
and recorded that the DPC proceedings conducted in the absence of a DoE
nominee had no sanctity in law. The school was directed to remove Ms.
Jyoti Kapoor from the post of Principal by following due process.

In W.P.(C) 8899/2004, decided on 9th May, 2007.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 6 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56

17. On 7th August, 2018, the teachers submitted a further request to the
Directorate complaining of non-compliance with the orders dated 4th
December, 2017 and 25th July, 2018. In September, 2018, the teachers filed
W.P.(C) 9915/2018 seeking enforcement of the DoE order dated 25th July,
2018 and consequential regularisation/pay benefits.

18. The school, on the other hand, filed W.P.(C) 13158/2021 challenging
the order dated 25th July, 2018. The school contends that the Directorate had
no jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act to adjudicate upon service
disputes, direct reinstatement or regularisation, or remove the Principal.

19. During the hearing, counsel appearing for the school submitted that,
without prejudice to the school’s rights and contentions and only to bring
quietus to the matter, the school was willing to pay INR 5 lakhs to Ms.
Sunita Tuteja and INR 1 lakh each to the other two Petitioners. The offer
was not accepted. The Court has recorded this only as a circumstance arising
during the hearing. It is not treated as an admission of liability.
CONTENTIONS
Contentions on behalf of the school

20. The impugned order dated 25th July, 2018 is without jurisdiction.
Section 24 of the DSEA is a provision for inspection and regulatory
supervision. It does not clothe the Directorate with adjudicatory power to
decide an employer-employee dispute or direct reinstatement of
contractual/ad hoc employees.

21. The school relies on Shashi Gaur v. NCT of Delhi,2 to submit that
disputes concerning dismissal, removal, reduction in rank and termination of
employees of recognised private schools fall within the jurisdiction of the

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 7 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
Delhi School Tribunal under Section 8(3) read with Section 11 of the Act. If
the Directorate could itself direct reinstatement under Section 24, the
statutory remedy before the Tribunal would be rendered redundant.

22. The Petitioner-teachers were contractual employees. Their
appointment letters speak for themselves. They were engaged for a fixed
period, on consolidated remuneration, without regular allowances, and the
tenure expired by efflux of time. The Court, therefore, cannot convert a
fixed-term contractual engagement into a regular appointment.

23. The school further submits that the teachers cannot claim
regularisation as of right. It relies upon Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Uma Devi,3 Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Secondary School v.
J.A.J. Vasu Sena,4 and P.K. Jain v. Directorate of Education,5 to submit
that there is no automatic regularisation, deemed confirmation or absorption
de hors the statutory scheme.

24. Counsel also argues that the DoE’s own order dated 4 th December,
2017 was conditional. It directed restoration only if the employees fulfilled
the educational qualifications under the Recruitment Rules. The Directorate,
however, did not examine the age, CTET, subject qualification, applicability
of the Recruitment Rules, or eligibility of the concerned teachers. It could
not direct reinstatement first and leave eligibility to assumption.

25. The school relies on the applicable Recruitment Rules and CBSE
notifications to contend that the teachers did not satisfy the essential
eligibility norms. The appointments of these teachers are dehors the

2
(2001) 10 SCC 445.

(2006) 4 SCC 1.

(2019) 17 SCC 157.

2022 SCC OnLine Del 3702.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 8 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, as they
suffer from either a lack of requisite essential educational qualifications,
including the mandatory CTET, or are cases of gross overage.

26. Reliance placed by the Directorate and the teachers upon the
Managing Committee minutes dated 24th June, 2016 is also challenged. The
school argues that the document is forged, unauthenticated and contradicted
by the appointment letters themselves. In any event, such a disputed
document cannot form the basis for mandamus treating the teachers as
regular employees.

27. On the issue of Ms. Jyoti Kapoor, it is submitted that the Directorate
travelled beyond jurisdiction in directing her removal as Principal. Absence
of a DoE nominee in the Selection Committee does not automatically
invalidate the appointment. Reliance is placed on Modern School v. Shashi
Pal Sharma,6 to submit that a DoE nominee is not possessed of a veto. The
Directorate confused essential and desirable qualifications for the post of
Principal.

28. The impugned order dated 25th July, 2018, is not a speaking order.
This Court, by order dated 25th April, 2018, in W.P.(C) 1033/2018 directed
the Director of Education to consider the school’s objections to the order
dated 4th December, 2017. However, the impugned order merely reiterates
the earlier view without dealing with the jurisdictional objection, eligibility,
contractual appointment, statutory remedy and qualifications.
Contentions on behalf of the teachers

29. The school cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory scheme by
resorting to contractual appointment letters after undertaking a regular

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 9 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
recruitment process. Applications were invited through a public
advertisement for teaching posts, a Staff Selection Committee was
constituted under Rule 96(3)(b) by decision dated 20 th May, 2016, and
interviews were duly conducted. The Managing Committee minutes dated
24th June, 2016 further record that the selected candidates were appointed as
teachers, with some being placed on contractual appointment only for a
period of observation prior to regularisation.

30. The contractual letters did not reflect the true nature of the
appointments. The teachers objected at the earliest opportunity by
representation dated 4th July, 2016, followed by further representations in
2017. The school therefore cannot invoke waiver, acquiescence, or
acceptance of the contractual terms against them.

31. DoE conducted an inquiry, issued a show-cause notice, and passed
orders on 4th December, 2017 and 25th July, 2018. Those orders were passed
in exercise of regulatory powers under the DSEA and must be enforced. The
school, having violated the Rules, cannot complain against the intervention
of the Directorate.

32. Section 10(1) of the DSEA mandates parity of pay and benefits for
employees of recognised private schools. Once the teachers were appointed
against regular vacancies, the school could not deny regular pay scales by
calling them contractual.

33. The teachers also challenge the authority of Ms. Jyoti Kapoor to
represent the school. They say that the DoE itself held her appointment as
Principal to be without sanctity in law. Reliance is place on the internal
management dispute to submit that the writ filed in the name of the school

6
(2007) 8 SCC 540.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 10 of 20

This is a digitally signed order.

34. Ms. Sunita Tuteja’s case is pressed separately. She served the school
for nearly seven years, starting from 2010, and performed duties beyond an
ordinary short-term engagement, including NCC-related work. Her case,
therefore, cannot be treated as one of a teacher who worked for only one
academic session.

Contentions on behalf of the Directorate of Education

35. The Directorate supports the regulatory basis of the orders. It submits
that the school is a recognised unaided school and is bound by the Act and
Rules. Complaints were received regarding irregular appointments and
discontinuance of teachers. An inquiry was conducted. The school was
found to be engaging teachers on ad hoc/contract basis against regular posts
and discontinuing them at the end of the academic session. The Directorate
contends that Section 24 empowers it to issue corrective directions when
defects or deficiencies in the working of a recognised school are noticed.

36. Moreover, the direction for restoration was not unconditional. It was
expressly made subject to fulfilment of the educational qualifications under
the Recruitment Rules. The school was not being required to appoint
unqualified persons. It was required to undo an illegal practice and submit
compliance.

ISSUES

37. On the pleadings and submissions, the following issues arise:

(i) Whether the order dated 25th July, 2018 could have been passed by
the Directorate of Education under Section 24 of the DSEA to the extent it
directs restoration/reinstatement, regularisation or pay benefits to the
teachers.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 11 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56

(ii) Whether the teachers, in W.P.(C) 9915/2018, are entitled to a writ of
mandamus enforcing the order dated 25th July, 2018 and directing the school
to treat them as regular employees.

(iii) Whether the Directorate could, in the same order, direct removal of
Ms. Jyoti Kapoor from the post of Principal.

(iv) Whether the internal management dispute or objection to Ms. Jyoti
Kapoor’s authority should prevent this Court from examining the legality of
the DoE order.

(v) What relief should follow, particularly in view of the availability of
remedy before the Delhi School Tribunal or any other competent forum.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Scope of Section 24 and the statutory forum

38. The first question is one of jurisdiction. Section 24 of the DSEA
enables inspection of schools and empowers the Director to issue directions
for removal of defects or deficiencies noticed in the working of a school.
The power is supervisory and regulatory in nature, intended to secure
compliance with the Act, the Rules, and the conditions of recognition.
Though broad and significant, it is not a general power to adjudicate every
private service dispute between a school and its employees.

39. The statutory scheme draws a distinction between regulatory control
over schools and adjudication of individual service rights. While Section 24
empowers the Directorate to ensure compliance with the Act and the Rules,
disputes concerning termination or cessation of service are separately dealt
with under Sections 8(3) and 11 through the Delhi School Tribunal. In
Shashi Gaur, the Supreme Court held that Section 8(3) must receive a broad
construction and extends not only to formal orders of dismissal, removal or

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 12 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
reduction in rank, but also to other forms of termination. The legislative
design is, therefore, plain: service disputes carrying civil consequences for
employees and schools are to be adjudicated by the Tribunal, unless
exceptional circumstances warrant direct interference under Article 226.

40. The impugned order dated 25th July, 2018 does not merely identify a
regulatory lapse. It directs restoration of named employees, grants them
prescribed benefits under Section 10(1), calls for a compliance report and, in
substance, decides that the discontinuance of their services was illegal.
These are adjudicatory consequences. They affect the civil rights of both
sides. Such a direction required determination of individual facts: the nature
of the vacancy, the terms of appointment, the validity of the selection
process, the authority of the Managing Committee, fulfilment of
Recruitment Rules, age, CTET wherever applicable, continuity of service,
breaks, and the legal effect of relieving/full and final documents.

41. Section 24 cannot be invoked to bypass that adjudicatory framework.
The Directorate was competent to inspect the school, call for records,
examine compliance with Rules 96 and 100, and take such regulatory action
as is permissible under the Act and the Rules. It could not, however, assume
the role of the Tribunal and direct reinstatement or regularisation of
individual employees in exercise of its inspection powers.

42. This conclusion, however, does not approve the school’s conduct. The
record discloses features that legitimately warranted concern. The school
advertised posts, constituted a Staff Selection Committee under Rule
96(3)(b), conducted interviews, and thereafter issued contractual
appointment letters. The teachers protested almost immediately. The
Directorate was therefore justified in examining the matter. But the

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 13 of 20

This is a digitally signed order.

43. The order dated 25th July, 2018 is therefore unsustainable to the extent
it directs restoration/reinstatement of the named teachers, regular treatment,
pay benefits, or compliance as though their service status already stood
adjudicated.

Can the teachers be treated as regular employees in this writ?

44. The teachers’ second prayer in W.P.(C) 9915/2018 seeks a direction
to treat them as regular teachers and to release salaries in the applicable pay
scales. That relief cannot be granted in these proceedings.

45. On the face of the appointment documents, the engagements of Ms.
Meenakshi Sharma and Ms. Shikha Gupta were contractual, time-bound and
on consolidated remuneration. The letters expressly exclude regular
allowances and reserve withdrawal. A writ court cannot ignore these
documents and straightaway declare the appointees regular employees.

46. The teachers’ answer is that the contractual label was a device. They
rely upon the advertisement, the constitution of the Staff Selection
Committee under Rule 96(3)(b), the minutes dated 24th June, 2016 and their
early representation dated 4th July, 2016. This plea may furnish them a cause
for adjudication. It does not furnish an immediate declaration of status of
regular employee.

47. There is a difference between saying that a dispute requires
adjudication and saying that the dispute has already been decided in favour
of the employee. The teachers ask this Court to take the second step without
the first. That cannot be done.

48. The school has also raised issues of age, CTET and educational

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 14 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
qualifications. The Assistant Teacher (Primary) Recruitment Rules placed
on record prescribe an age limit and CTET requirement. That aspect may
bear upon the claims of Ms. Shikha Gupta and Ms. Sunita Tuteja. As regards
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, the PGT Recruitment Rules placed before the Court
include later rules, and their precise applicability to a 2016 appointment
would itself require examination. This only reinforces the point that the
present proceeding is not the proper remedy for a final declaration of status.

49. In Ramakrishna Public School v. Directorate of Education,7 this
Court set aside a DoE order where the authority had dealt with procedural
lapses but failed to engage with the root issue of eligibility arising from an
allegedly invalid degree. In Meenu Shokeen v. Salwan Boys Senior
Secondary School,8 this Court declined to issue a mandamus which would
have required the employer to treat a disputed qualification as valid. What
emerges from these decisions is that where eligibility itself is disputed or
uncertain, service benefits or consequential relief cannot be granted without
first resolving that foundational issue.

50. The DoE’s own orders recognised this. The direction for restoration
was qualified by the words “if they fulfil the educational qualifications as
per the Recruitment Rules”. The Directorate did not decide that question.
Nor can this Court decide it in the first instance on this record.

51. It follows that the teachers are not entitled to a mandamus treating
them as regular employees or directing release of regular pay scales in this
writ petition. Their plea that the contractual form was a device is left open
for adjudication before the competent forum.

In W.P.(C) 4001/2019, decided on 12th January, 2026.

In W.P.(C) 5909/2026, decided on 30th April, 2026.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 15 of 20

This is a digitally signed order.

52. Ms. Sunita Tuteja’s case stands apart. She cannot be placed in the
same factual category as Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Ms. Shikha Gupta. The
latter two are principally 2016 appointees whose contractual assignments
were for one academic session. Ms. Tuteja’s record begins much earlier. The
material refers to engagements from 2010 onward, extensions, NCC-related
duties and service continuing, with breaks, until 2017.

53. This Court is not expressing any concluded view on whether such
engagements confer any right to reinstatement, regularisation, continuity,
back wages or monetary relief. Those questions would require examination
of the nature of the vacancy, the terms of appointment, intervening breaks,
statutory qualifications, age criteria, the effect of the relieving order, the
alleged full and final settlement, and the rival pleas of the parties.

54. It is sufficient to clarify that, if Ms. Tuteja approaches the competent
forum, her case shall be considered on its own facts and shall not be rejected
merely by treating her at par with employees who served for one academic
session. The school shall remain free to contest continuity, eligibility, age,
qualifications, contractual terms and all other defences available in law.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Ms. Shikha Gupta

55. The cases of Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Ms. Shikha Gupta present a
different complexion. Their appointment documents describe the
engagement as contractual, time-bound and on consolidated remuneration.
On the strength of such documents, this Court cannot issue a mandamus
treating them as regular teachers or directing release of regular pay scales.

56. At the same time, their grievance cannot be brushed aside merely by
reference to the label used in the appointment letters. They rely upon the

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 16 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
advertisement, the constitution of a Staff Selection Committee under Rule
96(3)(b), the minutes of the Managing Committee dated 24 th June, 2016, and
their prompt representation dated 4th July, 2016 to contend that the
contractual form did not reflect the true character of the appointment. These
are matters requiring adjudication on evidence and in the statutory setting.
They are left open for consideration by the competent forum, without this
Court expressing any view on the merits.

Direction regarding Ms. Jyoti Kapoor

57. The order dated 25th July, 2018 also directs removal of Ms. Jyoti
Kapoor from the post of Principal. That direction cannot be sustained in its
present form.

58. The Directorate may certainly examine whether the appointment of a
Principal in a recognised school complies with the Act, Rules, applicable
Recruitment Rules, the prescribed composition of the Selection Committee
and the requirements of approval or nomination where the law so requires. It
may call for records and take action permissible in law. But the impugned
order does more. It directs removal as a consequence of the Directorate’s
view that the selection proceedings had no sanctity.

59. The question whether Ms. Kapoor was qualified, whether the
applicable Recruitment Rules were correctly read, whether desirable
qualifications were wrongly treated as essential, whether absence of the DoE
nominee invalidated the proceedings, and what consequence followed from
any procedural lapse are all matters requiring proper consideration after
notice and in accordance with law. The school has relied upon Modern
School v. Shashi Pal Sharma, to say that a DoE nominee is not a veto-
bearing authority. The teachers dispute Ms. Kapoor’s authority altogether.

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 17 of 20

This is a digitally signed order.

60. The direction to remove Ms. Jyoti Kapoor from the post of Principal
is therefore set aside. This will not prevent the Directorate from examining
the legality of her appointment, or any later appointment/continuation, in
accordance with law and after affording opportunity to the affected parties.
Management dispute and locus

61. The teachers have urged that the school’s petition is not maintainable
because it has been instituted at the instance of Ms. Jyoti Kapoor, whose
authority is itself under challenge. There is also material showing rival
claims over the management of the school.

62. This Court does not consider it necessary to decide the internal
management dispute in these writ petitions. The impugned order has civil
consequences for the institution, its employees and its administration. The
writ petition has been filed in the name of the school. The school has
appeared and challenged the jurisdiction of the Directorate. Where the
legality of a public order affecting the school is itself under examination, the
Court would not decline scrutiny merely because rival management factions
also exist. Those disputes shall be decided by the competent civil or
statutory forum. No finding in this judgment shall be treated as recognising
either faction as the lawful management.

Settlement offer

63. During hearing, the school offered, without prejudice, INR 5 lakhs to
Ms. Sunita Tuteja and INR 1 lakh each to Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Ms.
Shikha Gupta to bring the dispute to an end. The offer was declined.

64. A proposal made to bring peace cannot be converted into an

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 18 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
adjudicated liability after its rejection. Since this Court is not deciding the
teachers’ service status on merits, it would be inappropriate to direct
payment of the proposed sums as compensation. It remains open to the
parties to resolve the dispute on such terms as may be mutually acceptable.
The making or rejection of the offer shall not prejudice either side before the
competent forum.

Relief

65. W.P.(C) 13158/2021 is partly allowed. The order dated 25th July, 2018
passed by the Directorate of Education is set aside to the extent it directs
restoration/reinstatement of the concerned teachers, grants or requires grant
of regular status/pay benefits to them, or directs removal of Ms. Jyoti
Kapoor from the post of Principal.

66. The factual observations made by the Directorate regarding the
functioning of the school, alleged irregular appointments, management
issues or other regulatory concerns are not affirmed by this Court as findings
on merits. They are also not erased as if the Directorate was powerless to
examine them. The Directorate shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance
with law under the Act and Rules in respect thereof.

67. W.P.(C) 9915/2018 is disposed of. The prayer for enforcement of the
order dated 25th July, 2018 and for treating the Petitioners as regular teachers
is declined.

68. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) 9915/2018 shall be at liberty to approach
the Delhi School Tribunal or such other competent forum as may be
available in law for redressal of their individual service grievances. If such
proceedings are instituted within eight weeks from today, the forum
concerned shall consider their plea regarding limitation bearing in mind that

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 19 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56
the Petitioners have been pursuing remedies before the Directorate and this
Court since 2017/2018. No claim shall be rejected on limitation without
considering their plea for exclusion or condonation of the period spent in
bona fide pursuit of these proceedings, to the extent permissible in law.

69. All contentions of the teachers, including the plea that the contractual
form was a device to defeat the statutory regime, are kept open. All defences
of the school, including contractual appointment, expiry by efflux of time,
absence of regular vacancy, non-fulfilment of Recruitment Rules, age,
CTET wherever applicable, lack of qualification, disputed authenticity of
documents, full and final settlement, limitation and maintainability, are also
kept open.

70. If Ms. Sunita Tuteja approaches the competent forum, her case shall
be considered separately on its own facts, having regard to the longer service
history asserted by her. This observation shall not be read as acceptance of
her claim, nor as rejection of the school’s defences.

71. The school shall not treat this judgment as approval of engaging
teachers on ad hoc or contractual basis against regular vacancies contrary to
the DSEA, the DSEAR or applicable Recruitment Rules. Any future
recruitment shall be made strictly in accordance with law.

72. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 14, 2026/nk

W.P.(C) 9915/2018 & W.P.(C) 13158/2021 Page 20 of 20

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 20/05/2026 at 20:42:56

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Ms. Meenakshi Sharma And Ors vs Director Of Education And Ors on 14 May, 2026

Delhi High Court – Orders