The central legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Rule 64(1)(b) of the DSE Rules to aided minority educational institutions does not violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.

MUKUL MUDGAL,J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been filed by the Government of National Capital territory of Delhi ('gnctd') against the following orders passed by the learned single Judge: (a) An Order dated 14. 9. 2005 allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 2426 of 1992 filed by the Respondents and striking down the instructions contained in the letter dated September 1989 of the Director of Education, GNCTD [appellant No. 2 herein] making it obligatory for all institutions receiving grants-in-aid from the Government (including aided minority educational institutions like that of the Respondents) to make reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and scheduled Tribes (STs) as a pre-condition for sanction of such grants. (b) An Order dated 14. 9. 2005 allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 4005 of 2002 filed by the Respondents and issuing a declaration that the Appellants herein do not have the power to insist that the respondent aided minority institution should follow the roster system in terms of the directions issued under Rule 64 (1) (b) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1983 ('dse Rules'); and further directing the appellants herein to grant the approval for appointment of teachers and faculty members within 90 days of an application being received in that behalf from the Respondent institution.

( 2 ) THE central issue that arises in these appeals is whether Rule 64 (1) (b) of the DSE Rules which stipulates that "no school shall be granted aid unless its managing committee gives an undertaking that it shall fill in posts in the school with Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in accordance with the instructions issued by the central government from time to time" would also apply to an aided minority educational institution which admittedly is in the domain of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the respondent No. 1 Sindhi Education Society is registered under the Societies registration Act, 1980 and is running a school known as the SES Baba Nebhraj senior Secondary School (Respondent No. 2 herein) in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is not in dispute that the school is a linguistic minority educational institution within the meaning of Section 2 (o) of the Delhi School Education act, 1973 ('dse Act') and within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by a judgment dated 14. 7. 1982 in civil Writ Petition No. 940 of 1995 (Sindhi Education Society v. Director of education) held that the respondent No. 2 school was a minority school. The division Bench in so doing followed an earlier judgment of this Court in s. S. Jain Sabha (of Rawalpindi) Delhi v. Union of India ILR (1976) II Delhi 61 and held that certain provisions of the DSE Rules cannot be applied to a minority school and certain others would apply only in a modified form.

( 5 ) IT is also not in dispute that the Respondent school is an aided minority school receiving the grants from the GNCTD. In terms of Rule 64 of the dse Rules, the Managing Committee of an aided minority institution is required to give an undertaking in writing that it shall comply with the provisions of the DSE Act, the DSE Rules and such instructions that may be issued from time to time by the Director of Education regarding grant-in-aid and further that in the event of any breach of the provisions of DSE Act, DSE Rules or instructions such school would be liable to be removed from the grant-in-aid list.

( 6 ) BY a letter dated 12. 3. 1985, the Delhi Administration informed Respondent no. 2 school that, following the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 7. 10. 1974 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel, it was obligatory for the respondent No. 2 to make reservation for SCs and STs in the posts in the school as a pre-condition to receiving grant-in-aid. This letter dated 12. 3. 1985 was not challenged by the Respondent school immediately. Instead,