State Aided Minority Institutions Can Appoint Teachers And Principal Without Government's Interference: Delhi High Court
In a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, the court ruled out that government-aided minority educational institutions have an absolute right concerning the appointment of their principal, teachers, and other staff.
The Delhi court was hearing the petition filed by the Delhi Tamil Education Association (DTEA) challenging the order passed by the Department of Education (DoE) rejecting its proposal to fill up 52 vacant posts in the schools through direct recruitment.
The DoE argued that the appointment could not be confirmed as there was no management committee in the schools. Notably, the DTEA informed the High Court that the association came into existence in 1923 aiming to promote and propagate the Tamil language, culture and ethose of the Tamil people. The DTEA runs 7 linguistic minority schools with a total 6,879 students.
Justice C Hari Shankar ordered that the extent by the DoE is limited to prescribe qualifications and experience for principal and teachers. No prior permission is required from the government for the appointment, the court observed. The judge said that as long as the principals and teachers possess the prescribed qualifications and experience, no restriction can be put on to make appointment to fill the vacancies in the schools run by the petitioner.
The court stressed that the grant in aid to the minority institutions does not make any substantial difference to this legal position regarding the appointment. The court ruled that the such institutions are entitiled to fill the vacant posts in the schools run on the government aid and subsided the DoE”s order rejecting DTEA”s proposal regarding appointment.
The Court added that the selection committee would be constituted following the Rule 96(3)(a) of the Delhi School Education Rules for principals appointment and 96(3)(b) for the teachers appoitment. This is subjected to the role of the nominee of the DoE being restricted under Rule 96 (3-A).
The DTEA case was represented by Adv Romy Chacko and Sachin Singh Dalal while Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Yeeshu jain and adv Jyoti Tyagi and Hitanshu Mishra appeared for DoE.
