The central legal point established in the judgment is that the formal presence of the nominee of the Director of Education in an advisory capacity is not required for the selection committee in aided minority schools, and Rule 96 as a whole does not apply to minority unaided schools.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. Certain litigations arise for being decided by Courts because of obstinacy of government departments in refusing to follow the established legal position. This is one of such cases which has to be decided by the Courts on account of perplexing refusal of the Director of Education to legally correct itself in spite of being pointed out the correct position in law. This refusal bordering on unnecessary obstinacy which is stated above arises from the applicability of the direct and categorical ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Queen Mary’s School Thru its Principal Vs. U.O.I. 185 (2011) DLT 168 (DB) holding that Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 as a whole does not apply to minority aided schools, and as para 14 thereof will show, that there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the ratio in the case of Queen Mary’s School (supra) for the Director of Education to have passed the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 on a specious ground that the interview for selection was held in August, 2011 and the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Queen Mary’s School (supra) came to be passed subsequently on 21.11.2011. In case the Director of Education had taken appropriate legal advice at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 26.12.2012, possibly the impugned order would not have been passed. In fact the show cause notice dated 22.6.2012 itself ought not to have been issued because issuing of the show cause notice is well after the judgment was passed in the case of Queen Mary’s School (supra) on 21.11.2011. I also note that the Director of Education has even in this writ petition through its pleadings, for reasons which this Court cannot fathom, continued with its unjustified stand and which is in face of the direct ratio of Queen Mary’s School (supra) case, though it could surely have been guided better and correctly.

2. The issue in this case to be decided is limited, and which is that whether for appointment of a teacher, TGT (Sanskrit), by the petitioner school, and which is an aided school, is it necessary that there should be an advisor nominated by the Director of Education on its selection committee in terms of Rule 96(3) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. This Rule 96(3) reads as under:-

“96. Recruitment. …………. (3) The Selection Committee shall consist of:— (a) in the case of recruitment of the head of the school,:- (i) the Chairman of the managing committee; (ii) in the case of an unaided school, an educationist is nominated by the managing committee, and an educationist nominated by the Director; (iii) in the case of an aided school, two educationists nominated by the Director, out of whom at least one shall be a person having experience of school education; (iv) a person having experience of the administration of schools, to be nominated, in the case of an unaided school by the managing committee, or in the case of an aided school, by the Director; (b) in the case of an appointment of a teacher (other than the head of the school: (i) the Chairman of the managing committee or a member of the managing committee nominated by the Chairman; (ii) the head of the school; (iii) in the case of a primary school, a female educationist having experience of school education; (iv) in the case of an aided school, one educationist to be nominated by the Director, and one representative of the Director;

(v) in the case of appointment of a teacher for any class in the middle stage or any class in the higher secondary stage, an expert on the subject in relation to which the teacher is proposed to be appointed, to be nominated, in the case of an unaided school by the managing committee, or in the case of an aided school, by the Director. (c) in the case of an appointment of any other employee, not being an employee belonging to [Group-D]: (i) the Chairman of the managing committee or a member of the managing commi