W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010108382026 + W.P.(C) 3663/2026 & CM APPL. 17825/2026 DR ZAKIR HUSAIN MEMORIAL SCHOOL KI KARYAKARINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Advocate. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The Petitioner administers an aided minority educational institution in Delhi and seeks to fill several permanent teaching and non-teaching vacancies. The recruitment process has, however, remained stalled on account of objections raised by the Directorate of Education [“DoE”]. 2. This is not the first round of proceedings between the parties. In W.P.(C) 8323/2025, this Court, vide order dated 15th September, 2025, remanded the matter to DoE for reconsideration of the then revised advertisement proposed by the Petitioner. While doing so, DoE was directed to ensure that its decision was in consonance with the judgments of this Court regarding the scope of interference in the recruitment process of minority educational institutions, including the decision in Delhi Tamil This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03 W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 2 of 7 Education Association v. Director of Education & Ors1. 3. Upon such reconsideration, DoE rejected the proposed advertisement by order dated 23rd December, 2025, which led to this petition. The position, however, has since changed. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Petitioner made further revisions to the proposed advertisement, following which DoE undertook a fresh examination, culminating in a fresh order dated 7th August, 2026. A copy of the said order handed over across the Board is taken on record. 4. The order dated 7th August, 2026 substantially narrows the controversy. The Zonal Committee examined the modified proposed advertisement along with the records concerning recognition, grant-in-aid, the Scheme of Management, minority status, the applicable Recruitment Rules and the marking scheme. Upon such examination, it recorded: “The Committee has recorded that the Advertisement appears to be in order, subject to approval of the competent authority and subject to ASB furnishing any latest applicable RRs.” 5. The only objection which now remains concerns the requirement in the advertisement that candidates for all posts, including PGTs, TGTs, Assistant Teachers, PETs, Librarians and LDCs, should have passed Urdu as a subject up to the secondary level. According to DoE, this blanket stipulation, applied indiscriminately to all posts irrespective of their nature, does not appear to flow from the applicable Recruitment Rules and, on its face, appears discriminatory in imposing a language qualification unconnected to the functional requirements of most of the posts advertised. 6. There is another facet to the objection. DoE records that the minority 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4158. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03 W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 3 of 7 status certificate held by the Petitioner has been issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions [“NCMEI”], which is the statutory authority for recognition of religious minority status, but that nothing on record indicates that the Petitioner has been separately recognised as a linguistic minority institution. On this basis, DoE has also questioned the applicability of the Urdu qualification. 7. Mr. Arjun Kakkar, counsel appearing for the Petitioner, disputes both propositions. He draws attention to the Memorandum of Association of the society and, in particular, to one of its original objects, which reads: “Providing prominence to Urdu and religious education along with our National language, Hindi in the national spirit.” 8. Mr. Kakkar submits that the institution was established, inter alia, with the object of giving prominence to Urdu and that the requirement of familiarity with the language cannot be treated as an alien qualification merely because it does not find mention in the ordinary Recruitment Rules. Mr. Kakkar also places reliance upon the decision in Delhi Tamil Education. 9. Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC (GNCTD) appearing for DoE, submits that the minority character of the institution is not in issue, but its claim to be a linguistic minority institution is not borne out from the material presently available with DoE. She also questions whether, even assuming such status, knowledge of Urdu can be imposed as an essential qualification for every post without regard to the nature of its functions. 10. Two principles need to be kept in view while the issue is considered. In Delhi Tamil Education, this Court held that an aided minority institution has the right to appoint persons of its choice as Principals, teachers and other This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03 W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 4 of 7 staff, and that no prior permission or approval of the DoE is required for such appointments. The extent of regulation by the DoE is limited to prescribing qualifications and experience for Principals and teachers. So long as the prescribed qualifications and experience are possessed, there can be no restriction on the institution’s right to fill the vacancies. It further concluded that the Selection Committee is nevertheless required to be constituted in accordance with Rule 96(3)(a) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 in the case of Principals and Rule 96(3)(b) in the case of teachers, subject to the role of the DoE’s nominees being restricted in terms of Rule 96(3-A). The Division Bench dismissed the appeal against Delhi Tamil Education in LPA 642/2024 on 22nd July, 2024, and SLP(C) 28295/2024 was, thereafter, dismissed on 6th December, 2024. 11. The reliance placed in DoE’s order dated 7th August, 2026 upon Virendra Nath Gupta & Anr. v. Delhi Administration & Ors.2 also requires consideration. The Supreme Court was dealing a linguistic minority established, inter alia, to promote the study of Malayalam and preserve Malayalee language and culture. In those circumstances, the Court recognised that a linguistic minority may, in furtherance of its constitutional right to conserve its language, script and culture, prescribe an additional qualification for teachers employed in its institution. Applying that principle, it upheld knowledge of Malayalam as an essential qualification for the post of Vice Principal. The Court took into account that Malayalam formed part of the curriculum and that, having regard to the administrative character of the post of Principal or Vice Principal, knowledge of the language was both proper and desirable. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03 W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 5 of 7 12. Virendra Nath Gupta, therefore, does not support the proposition that an additional language qualification becomes impermissible merely because it is not found in the applicable Recruitment Rules. Indeed, the challenge in that case proceeded on precisely that basis and was rejected. At the same time, the judgment does not decide whether a linguistic minority institution may prescribe the same language qualification indiscriminately for every teaching and non-teaching post. That question did not arise before the Supreme Court. In the present case, therefore, the DoE must first consider the Petitioner’s claim to linguistic minority status and, if that status is established, examine the Urdu requirement in the light of the objects for which the institution was founded and the constitutional protection recognised in Virendra Nath Gupta. Whether such a requirement can extend uniformly to every teaching and non-teaching post is not answered by and must be examined independently, having regard to the objects of the institution and the range of posts to which the qualification is sought to be applied. 13. On the record presently before the Court, the issues identified above cannot be conclusively determined in these proceedings. The Petitioner must have an opportunity to place before the DoE the material on which it relies in support of its claim and to explain the basis for prescribing knowledge of Urdu for the different categories of posts covered by the advertisement. These matters would, therefore, appropriately be considered by the DoE in the first instance, in accordance with the principles set out above. 14. One further clarification is necessary. The exercise which now follows is not one of granting the Petitioner permission to recruit. Delhi 2 (1990) 2 SCC 307. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03 W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 6 of 7 Tamil Education Association does not contemplate prior administrative approval as a condition for recruitment by an aided minority institution. The scrutiny of the DoE must remain within the permissible regulatory framework, including compliance with the prescribed qualifications, experience and other statutory requirements applicable to the posts in question. Once the surviving objection is resolved and no other legally applicable requirement remains unmet, the recruitment process must not be delayed. 15. In these circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Petitioner may, within one week from today, submit a representation in response to the objections noticed in the order dated 7th August, 2026. The representation may be supported by such material as the Petitioner relies upon to establish its claim as a linguistic minority institution. It shall also explain, with reference to each category of posts advertised, the basis for prescribing knowledge of Urdu up to the secondary level. (ii) The DoE shall consider the representation in the light of Delhi Tamil Education and Virendra Nath Gupta. The enquiry shall not be concluded merely on the ground that Urdu is not prescribed as a qualification in the ordinary Recruitment Rules. DoE shall first examine whether the Petitioner establishes its claim as a linguistic minority institution. If that claim is made out, DoE shall then consider whether the Urdu requirement bears a rational connection with the objects for which the institution was established and with the nature of the posts for which the qualification has been prescribed. (iii) Since the order dated 7th August, 2026 records that the modified This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03 W.P.(C) 3663/2026 Page 7 of 7 advertisement is otherwise in order, the consideration shall ordinarily remain confined to the issues identified above. (iv) A reasoned decision shall be taken within four weeks from receipt of the representation, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. (v) If no legally sustainable objection thereafter survives, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed with publication of the advertisement. DoE shall, in that event, extend such cooperation as may be required under Rule 96 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, to the extent applicable, including nomination of its representative or representatives, wherever required. 16. In view of the fresh examination undertaken by DoE, culminating in the order dated 7th August, 2026, the earlier rejection dated 23rd December, 2025 shall not independently operate as an impediment to the recruitment process. 17. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the Petitioner’s claim to linguistic minority status or on the validity of the Urdu qualification for any particular post. Both issues are left open to be considered by DoE in the manner indicated above. 18. In the above terms, the present writ petition, along with any pending application(s), stands disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 13, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:14:03