Delhi High Court – Orders
Nuzhat Siddique vs Cresent School And Ors on 27 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 19250/2025 & CM APPL. 80315/2025
NUZHAT SIDDIQUE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. K. Shukla, Advocate.
versus
CRESENT SCHOOL AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 27.04.2026
1. The Petitioner assails the order dated 12th November, 2025 passed by
the Delhi School Tribunal [“DST”] in Appeal No. 32/2018. By the said
order, DST has directed Respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay to the Petitioner three
months’ salary, calculated on the basis of her last drawn emoluments, and to
issue an experience certificate to enable her to seek further employment. The
Petitioner seeks quashing of DST’s order to the extent it denies
reinstatement, continuity of service, and full back wages.
2. The present petition has been finally heard at the stage of admission.
No notice has been issued to the Respondents. The record filed by the
Petitioner, including the material placed before DST, is sufficient to
examine whether the petition discloses any ground warranting interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The Petitioner was appointed by Crescent School [“the School”] as a
Teacher by letter dated 29th November, 2014. The letter expressly stated that
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 1 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
the appointment was “purely on contract basis” for the period from 29th
November, 2014 to 25th February, 2015. She was to be paid an honorarium
of INR 15,100 per month during that period. The Petitioner, however,
asserts that her appointment was made after following due process,
including an interview pursuant to an advertisement, and cannot be
characterised as a backdoor entry.
4. The Petitioner’s case is that her engagement was not a one-off or
short-duration arrangement. She submits that the School issued successive
appointment/extension letters and continued to take work from her as a
Nursery Teacher for more than three years. The record placed before the
Court contains several such letters, beginning from 2nd April, 2016 right up
until 17th March, 2018. Each letter, however, describes the engagement as
contractual and stipulates a defined period of service. The last letter dated
17th March, 2018 appointed the Petitioner for the period from 19th March,
2018 to 18th May, 2018, or “till the regular Selection Committee Meeting is
held”, whichever was earlier, on consolidated emoluments of INR 19,160
per month. The Petitioner contends that such stipulation itself indicates that
her engagement was to continue against a regular requirement and could not
be treated as a purely casual or intermittent arrangement.
5. The Petitioner contends that although the last written engagement was
to end on 18th May, 2018, she continued to work till 30th June, 2018. She
asserts that her services were thereafter brought to an end orally, or through
a WhatsApp communication, without notice, inquiry, or any written order of
termination, and without obtaining the approval which, according to her,
was required from the Directorate of Education [“DoE”]. She further states
that she was asked to hand over school property, including keys and books,
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 2 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
and that this direction was, in substance, an act of termination. She also
submits that no reasons were furnished at the time of discontinuance and
that the Respondents cannot supplement the same subsequently.
6. The Petitioner’s grievance is therefore not confined to the absence of
a written termination order. Her submission is that the School, though an
unaided minority institution, is a recognised school governed by the Delhi
School Education Act, 1973 [“DSE Act“] and the Delhi School Education
Rules, 1973 [“DSE Rules”]. She contends that the School could not have
continued her on successive contractual engagements for several years while
extracting regular teaching work. She further contends that there is no
concept of purely contractual employment under the statutory scheme and
that her engagement, in substance, was governed by statutory provisions. It
is also her case that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v.
Umadevi (3) & Ors.1 is inapplicable, as her appointment was made in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. In support, she relies upon
Sections 8, 10 and 15 of the DSE Act, and Rules 96, 105 and 130 of the
DSE Rules.
7. The Petitioner further submits that she was appointed to teach Nursery
classes after being found suitable for that work. According to her, the post
was not honorary in character and, therefore, the description of her monthly
payment as “honorarium”, instead of salary, was contrary to the statutory
scheme governing recognised schools. She also invokes Section 10 of the
DSE Act to contend that she was entitled to salary in accordance with
statutory norms and that the payment of fixed emoluments was
impermissible. She disputes the characterisation of her engagement as
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 3 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
purely contractual, contending that no valid contract in terms of the statutory
framework was executed. She also contends that, in the case of an unaided
minority school, the management was required to enter into a proper written
contract of service and forward the same to the administration. The DoE, she
urges, failed to scrutinise the School’s conduct despite the Petitioner having
been engaged for several years on fixed emoluments. This failure, according
to her, ought to have weighed with DST while moulding relief.
8. The Petitioner places particular emphasis on Rule 105 of the DSE
Rules. Her submission is that a recognised school cannot keep a teacher on a
precarious contractual or probationary footing indefinitely while continuing
to extract regular teaching work. Since she had served for more than three
years, the arrangement could not be treated as a casual engagement. In this
regard, reliance is placed on the decisions in The Principal St. Mary’s
School & Anr. v. Rajendra Pratap Singh & Ors.2 and Durgabai Deshmukh
Memorial Senior Secondary School & Anr. v. J.A.J. Vasu Sena & Anr.3,
wherein it has been recognised that the statutory framework under the DSE
Act and Rules does not permit indefinite continuation of employees on
probationary or ad hoc basis, and that the scheme of Rule 105 contemplates
a limited period of probation, beyond which the employer cannot deny the
employee the protection of regular service while continuing to take work.
On that basis, she submits that she was entitled to be treated as a confirmed
employee or, at the very least, as one whose services could not be dispensed
with except in accordance with statutory safeguards.
9. The Petitioner also invokes the principle that one ad hoc, temporary,
1
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
2
2018 SCC OnLine Del 12389.
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 4 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
or contractual employee ought not to be replaced by another employee of the
same category. She contends that her discontinuance was effected in
violation of this principle as well as the rule of ‘last come first go’, and is
further arbitrary and violative of the principles enunciated under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Her specific contention is that, after her
discontinuance, the School appointed another teacher, described as Ms.
Momina, in her place, and also engaged other teachers in Nursery and KG
classes. In support, she relies on a newspaper publication and a WhatsApp
communication which, according to her, indicate that the School continued
to engage or invite applications for Nursery/KG teachers after her
disengagement, thereby undermining the justification offered for
discontinuing her services. On that foundation, she filed an application
before DST seeking production of the record relating to the appointment of
Nursery/KG teachers, including the relevant selection records.
10. The Petitioner further contends that DST ought to have summoned
records relating not only to appointments but also to staff strength and
payment of salary. Her grievance is that DST disposed of the appeal without
properly deciding these applications and without summoning the relevant
record which, according to her, would have demonstrated that the
justification for her discontinuance was untenable. She also reiterates this
grievance before this Court and seeks a direction for production of such
records, including details of appointments made after her disengagement, in
support of her challenge to the impugned order.
11. The Petitioner further urges that by the time DST decided the appeal
on 12th November, 2025, more than seven years had elapsed from the date of
3
(2019) 17 SCC 157.
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 5 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
her discontinuance. She has become overage and that her future employment
prospects had been seriously prejudiced. She further contends that the
School had paid her low emoluments and had continued her on a contractual
basis for several years, yet DST granted only three months’ salary and an
experience certificate. This, she contends, is inadequate.
12. The School’s stand before DST was that the Petitioner was engaged
as a contractual Nursery Teacher. It stated that the School had two regular
posts of Nursery Teachers, occupied by two permanent teachers, namely Ms.
Samreen Afzal and Ms. Pooja. The Petitioner, according to the School, was
engaged only because expansion of Nursery classes was contemplated.
Since the number of students did not increase, the School decided not to
continue the contractual engagement. The School denied that any
contractual Nursery Teacher was appointed after the Petitioner’s
discontinuance and also denied that Ms. Momina was working in the School.
13. The DoE, on the other hand, stated before DST that the School is an
unaided private minority institution run by the Crescent Education Society,
and that its Managing Committee is the appointing and disciplinary
authority. It also stated that the School is governed by the DSE Act and the
Rules framed thereunder. It further stated that, as per information received
from the School, the Petitioner continued as a Nursery Teacher till 30 th June,
2018, and that her engagement came to an end upon expiry of the
contractual term, without any formal termination.
Analysis
14. DST, while declining reinstatement and regularisation, proceeded on
the footing that the Petitioner’s engagement was contractual and for a
limited period. It held that the expiry of a fixed-term contractual engagement
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 6 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
did not amount to dismissal, removal or termination requiring a charge-
sheet, or a show-cause notice. At the same time, DST noticed that the
Petitioner had worked for the School and that the arrangement had affected
her future prospects. It therefore directed payment of three months’ salary
and issuance of an experience certificate.
15. One aspect of DST’s factual narration does require correction. It
proceeded on the footing that only two appointment letters had been placed
on record, whereas the material before this Court shows that the Petitioner
had also relied upon several extension letters issued between 2016 and 2017.
However, this does not alter the outcome. Even when all such letters are
considered, they do not indicate appointment against a sanctioned vacancy,
selection through a Selection Committee, confirmation, or probation to a
regular post. On the contrary, they consistently reflect fixed-term contractual
engagements, including the last letter dated 17th March, 2018, which limited
the engagement up to 18th May, 2018 or till a regular Selection Committee
meeting was held. Thus, the Petitioner’s own record establishes repeated
contractual engagements and does not demonstrate a statutory appointment.
16. A recognised school is bound by the statutory framework, and
minority status does not permit unfair treatment of employees. However, the
present petition turns on a narrower question: whether the Petitioner has
demonstrated an enforceable right to reinstatement, regularisation,
continuity of service or back wages. The DSE Act and the Rules regulate
service conditions and prescribe the manner of appointment, and where
statutory protection is claimed, the first inquiry must be whether the
appointment itself bears a statutory character. An appointment made outside
the prescribed process cannot, merely by lapse of time or repeated
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 7 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
extensions, ripen into a right to regular appointment, nor can the Court
create a route to regular service which the Rules themselves do not
contemplate.
17. That principle is well settled. In Uma Devi, the Supreme Court
cautioned that regularisation cannot be used as a parallel mode of
recruitment. An appointment not made in accordance with the applicable
rules, and not preceded by a fair selection process, does not confer a right to
absorption in regular service.
18. The Petitioner’s reliance on Rule 105 of the DSE Rules is misplaced.
The Rule pertains to probationary appointments to regular posts, whereas the
Petitioner was never appointed on probation. Her appointment and extension
letters consistently describe the engagement as contractual and for specified
periods. In any event, Rule 105(3) excludes its application to appointments
made to fill a temporary vacancy or for a limited period.
19. The reliance on deemed confirmation is also untenable in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Durgabai Deshmukh. The Court, while
interpreting Rule 105 of the DSE Rules, held that mere continuation of
service beyond the period of probation does not, by itself, result in deemed
confirmation. The Petitioner was, however, not appointed as a probationer to
a regular post but was engaged under letters which expressly described the
engagement as contractual and confined it to specified periods.
20. The Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Negi v. Balvantray Mehta
Vidya Bhawan Anguridevi Shersingh Memorial Academy & Ors. 4, while
examining a similar claim, held that for an employee to claim statutory
protection, it must first be established that the appointment itself was made
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 8 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
in accordance with the statutory scheme. The Court emphasised that
recruitment in a recognised unaided school is governed by Rule 96, and
unless the appointment is made in conformity with the prescribed procedure,
no statutory protection can enure to the appointee; an appointment made
otherwise would not confer any enforceable right or support a claim for
regularisation or absorption in service.
21. There is no dispute that recognised schools, including minority
institutions, are bound by the statutory regime. However, the decision in St.
Mary’s School proceeds in the context of an appointment governed by Rule
105, where the employee was appointed to a regular post and the question
related to confirmation and termination within the statutory framework. It
does not dispense with the requirement that the appointment itself must be in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the present case, the Petitioner
has not established that her engagement was made against a sanctioned post
or through the process contemplated under the Rules. The reliance on the
said decision is, therefore, misplaced.
22. The Petitioner’s contention that a temporary or contractual employee
ought not to be replaced by another of the same category does not advance
her case. Even assuming such a principle, it cannot be invoked to regularise
an appointment not made in accordance with the statutory recruitment
procedure, and in any event applies only where replacement is established
on record. In the present case, the allegation that the Petitioner was replaced
by Ms. Momina remains unsubstantiated. The School denied before DST
that any teacher by that name was working in the School, and no credible
material has been placed to establish otherwise. The newspaper and
4
2021 SCC OnLine Del 3412.
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 9 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
WhatsApp material relied upon merely indicate a general advertisement for
teachers and do not disclose the date of publication, the post filled, the
person selected, or any appointment made in the Petitioner’s place. The
Petitioner’s applications for production of records and impleadment were
founded on the same allegation; however, in the absence of foundational
material, DST cannot be faulted for declining to embark upon a roving
inquiry into appointments made by the School.
23. The Petitioner’s reliance on provisions of Chapter IV of the DSE Act,
including Sections 8 and 10, is equally misplaced. These provisions do not
extend to an unaided minority school in view of Section 12 of the Act. Even
otherwise, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the impugned action
amounted, in substance, to dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, or
termination of service. The record discloses no charge, allegation of
misconduct, stigma, or finding of unsatisfactory performance. What is
described as termination is, on the material placed on record, the non-
continuance of a limited-period contractual engagement, and a direction to
return school property upon cessation of engagement does not assume the
character of a disciplinary or punitive order. Similarly, the plea of salary
parity cannot be examined in these proceedings. The Petitioner accepted
fixed emoluments under successive appointment letters, and any
independent claim for parity of pay would require adjudication on
appropriate pleadings and evidence, including the nature of the post, work
discharged, applicable pay structure, and the position of similarly situated
employees. That issue does not arise from the impugned order, which is
confined to refusal of reinstatement and back wages, nor can a claim for
arrears on the scale of a regular teacher be adjudicated in the absence of the
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 10 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
necessary factual foundation.
24. Even if the Petitioner is given the benefit of her assertion that she
worked till 30th June, 2018, the legal position remains unchanged. At its
highest, this may justify payment for the period actually worked or issuance
of an experience certificate, but it does not convert a fixed-term contractual
engagement into permanent service or create a right to reinstatement.
25. The Petitioner’s reliance on Section 15 of the DSE Act and Rule 130
of the DSE Rules also does not advance her case. Those provisions deal with
“contract of service” in the context of unaided minority schools. The record
contains written appointment letters signed by the Petitioner. Each letter
disclosed the nature and duration of the engagement. Any alleged non-
compliance with procedural requirements, such as non-forwarding of the
contract to the DoE, may at best invite regulatory scrutiny, but does not
confer a right to reinstatement or regularisation.
26. The relief granted by DST, namely payment of three months’ salary
along with an experience certificate, appears to have been moulded on
equitable considerations, having regard to the period of engagement and the
circumstances in which the Petitioner’s association with the School came to
an end.
27. In case the Petitioner seeks to assert any monetary claim beyond the
compensation awarded, she is at liberty to pursue such remedies, if so
advised, in appropriate civil proceedings in accordance with law, where
issues relating to loss, causation, and quantification may be duly examined.
28. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not persuaded that the
impugned order warrants interference. The relief granted by DST was based
on equitable principles, and no case is made out for directing reinstatement,
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 11 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
continuity of service, full back wages, regularisation, or production of
further records. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
29. It is clarified that if the amount directed by DST has not been paid or
the experience certificate has not been issued, the Petitioner shall be at
liberty to pursue enforcement of those directions in accordance with law.
30. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 27, 2026/hc
W.P.(C) 19250/2025 Page 12 of 12
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 29/04/2026 at 20:58:04
