Absence Of Minority Status Certificate Not Conclusive Against Minority Character: Delhi High Court
The Bench held that Section 8(2) DSE Act and Rules 118 and 120 do not apply to unaided minority schools; sends termination appeal back to Delhi School Tribunal on natural justice grounds.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of a Minority Status Certificate is not, by itself, conclusive against an institution’s minority status. Declaring Hemnani Public School an unaided linguistic minority institution, the Court said a certificate may evidence that status but does not create the right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that, as a result, the termination of the school’s Vice-Principal could not be invalidated for want of prior approval under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, or under Rules 118 and 120 of the DSE Rules. It set aside the Delhi School Tribunal’s order and restored her appeal to decide the natural justice objections, while enforcing the Directorate of Education’s order on wages for the suspension period.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “…absence of a Minority Status Certificate is not, by itself, conclusive against minority status. Section 2(o) of the DSE Act defines a minority school as one established and administered by a minority having the right to do so under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The definition, thus, turns on the establishment and administration of the institution by a minority having the constitutional right to do so. A certificate may formally declare or evidence that status; it does not create the right under Article 30(1)”.
Senior Advocate Dinesh Agnani appeared for the petitioner Advocate Kuldeep Kumar appeared for the respondent.
The Vice-Principal, Ms. Ipsa Gurnani, was suspended on July 23, 2016, and terminated on February 10, 2017, after an enquiry in which the school said she did not participate. The Directorate of Education held the suspension void on March 28, 2017, for want of approval, and directed that she be paid full salary for that period. The school did not challenge that order. On December 22, 2017, the Tribunal set aside the termination, treating the school as non-minority since it held no certificate. The school challenged that order, and Gurnani sought implementation of the March 2017 order.
The Court noted that the Directorate had changed its stand before it, relying on the 1991 Scheme of Management naming the Sindhi Education Society as parent body and the 1982 judgment recognising Sindhi as a linguistic minority in Delhi. It held that the 1982 judgment did not decide this school’s status directly, but that the school’s own record established it. Applying Frank Anthony, G. Vallikumari and C.S. Clarke, the Court held Section 8(2) and Rules 118 and 120 inapplicable, and found C.S. Clarke not per incuriam.
“…In view of Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, it is unnecessary for this Court to endorse that statement as an exhaustive exposition of the NCMEI’s statutory jurisdiction. The narrower point is sufficient for these petitions: the DST could not treat the absence of a certificate as the end of the enquiry. The School’s status must be determined from the constitutional and statutory test, applied to the material relating to the School itself. Based on the record, the Court is satisfied that Hemnani Public School is an unaided linguistic minority educational institution”, the Bench noted.
The Court held that management’s disciplinary control is still subject to a fair procedure. It found support in the record for the objection that persons who deposed against Gurnani may have sat in the disciplinary body, but left this and the question of whether the enquiry report was furnished to the Tribunal. On the suspension, it held Sections 8(4) and 8(5) apply to minority schools and that suspension lapses without approval within fifteen days.
The Tribunal must decide the remaining grounds within four months of receiving the record. The school must pay the suspension-period amount within eight weeks, after credit for subsistence allowance. Entitlement after February 10, 2017 will abide by the Tribunal’s decision.
Cause Title: Hemnani Public School v. Ipsa Gurnani & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9031)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Dinesh Agnani, Hemant Manjani, Tarun Aswani, Advocates.
Respondent: Kuldeep Kumar, Syed Nilofar Akhtar, Latika Choudhary, Advocates.