United Christian Senior ... vs Director Of Education And Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 578 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.7940/2008

%                                                   31st January, 2017

UNITED CHRISTIAN SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR.
                                        ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. Romy Chacko, Advocate
                           with Mr. Varun Mudgal,
                           Advocate.
                          versus

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ANR.          ..... 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

Delhi and Ors. 2008 (106) DRJ 935 and Queen Mary's School Thru

Its Principal Vs. U.O.I. 185 (2011) DLT 168 and 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.

4. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in

terms of aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

JANUARY 31, 2017                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne