The Delhi High Court, sitting as a single bench presided over by Justice Jasmeet Singh, delivered a judgment in the matter of St. Anthony's Boys Secondary School v. Directorate of Education, WP(C) No. 16805/2025. The petitioner, an aided Christian minority educational institution established in 1922, challenged two orders issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE). The first order, dated 18 July 2025, directed the school to withhold its recruitment process. The second order authorised surprise inspections of aided minority schools. The petitioner contended that the recruitment had been carried out in strict compliance with the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, following earlier relief granted by the High Court in related litigation.

Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the right to appoint teachers and staff, without compromising their educational qualifications and relevant experience, forms an integral part of the right to manage and administer a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the DoE’s authority over aided minority institutions is confined to prescribing qualifications and/or experience for appointment of teaching and non‑teaching staff. No other restrictions or criteria may be imposed by the DoE on such institutions.

The bench noted that there were no allegations before it that any of the nineteen newly appointed employees lacked the qualifications prescribed by the State. In the absence of any such finding, the Court held that the DoE could not lawfully stall the recruitment process or withhold grant‑in‑aid towards the salaries of those employees. Consequently, the Court quashed the DoE’s order directing the school to halt recruitment and directed the release of grant‑in‑aid for the salaries of the nineteen eligible employees within a period of four weeks.

In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002). It reiterated that while the State may regulate aided minority institutions in matters concerning educational standards, it cannot interfere with their core right to appoint staff, except by prescribing eligibility criteria. The judgment clarified that minority institutions possess the discretion to appoint their staff as they see fit, provided the appointed individuals satisfy the qualification and experience criteria laid down by the DoE. No prior approval from the DoE is required for such appointments when the prescribed criteria are met.

The Court made it clear that its ruling is subject to the outcome of a pending reference before a Division Bench concerning the validity of the DoE’s 2014 circular that prescribes a marking scheme for the recruitment process. Until that reference is resolved, the present order operates as an interim measure protecting the petitioner’s right to manage its staff.

Appearances: Mr. Romy Chacko, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Ashwin Romy, Mr. Sachin Singh Dalal, Mr. Akshat Singh and Mr. Joe Sebastian, appeared for the petitioner. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Senior Counsel, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat appeared for the respondent.

The decision reinforces the constitutional protection afforded to minority educational institutions under Article 30, delineating the boundary between permissible state regulation and impermissible encroachment on the institution’s administrative autonomy. It signals that executive directions which go beyond the prescription of qualifications and experience constitute an overreach of authority and are liable to be set aside by the courts.