Judgment:
* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.7940/2008 31st January, 2017 UNITED CHRISTIAN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR. ........ Petitioner
s Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate with Mr. Varun Mudgal, Advocate. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, ASC with Ms. Sona Babbar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner no.1/school impugns the order of the Director of Education dated 12.5.2008 whereby the Director of Education has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.2/Mr. Darwin Pershad as the Principal of the petitioner no.1/school.
2. The issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of St. Anthony's Girls Sen. Sec. School and Ors. Vs. The Govt. of N.C.T. of W.P.(C) No.7940/2008 Page 1 of 3 Delhi and Ors. 2008 (106) DRJ935and Queen Mary's School Thru Its Principal Vs. U.O.I. 185 (2011) DLT168and which lay down the ratio that so far as a minority school is concerned, the right of the Director of Education is at best to lay down the standards/qualifying criteria, but thereafter it is the absolute privilege of the minority school to decide who should be appointed as the Principal of the school. It is not disputed before me on behalf of the Director of Education that there is no issue with respect to the petitioner no.2 failing to meet the qualifying criteria for being appointed as a Principal of the petitioner no.1/school. Once that is so, the ratios of the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of St. Anthony's Girls Sen. Sec. School (supra) and Queen Mary's School (supra) will become applicable and hence the respondent no.1/Director of Education had no right to reject the appointment of the petitioner no.2 as the Principal of the petitioner no.1/school.
3. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. Communication of the Director of Education dated 12.5.2008 will be quashed and the petitioner no.2 will stand as affirmed to the post of Principal of the petitioner no.1/school as per the DPC of the petitioner no.1/school dated 24.4.2008. W.P.(C) No.7940/2008 Page 2 of 3 4. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JANUARY31 2017 Ne VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J W.P.(C) No.7940/2008 Page 3 of 3