Have the judgments of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Sumanjit Kaur v. NCT of Delhi 2005 III AD Delhi 560, as affirmed by the decision dated 1.2.2006 of the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA Nos.445 446/2005 Govt.
That was the primary and only reason, stated by the learned Single Judge, for allowing the writ petition.
This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his Order dated 14.9.2005.
The Secretary Education , Govt.
The Division Bench, which passed the impugned judgment expressed the view companytra to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Case of Sumanjit Kaur supra , as affirmed by the Division Bench.
This Rule prescribe certain limitation which the Competent Authority can impose in exercise of its powers.
The aforesaid letter was issued after the judgment of the Court had been pronounced, however, according to the appellant, in violation of all the principles and the law laid down by that Court, they still received another companymunication from the authorities in September, 1989, addressed to all the schools that appointment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is a precondition for all the agencies receiving grant in aid from the Government and while referring to Rule 64 of the DSE Rules and its amendment, they were required by the authorities to companyply with this companydition.
The companyrectness of this action of the respondent was questioned by appellants by filing a writ petition in the High Court, which came to be registered as Writ Petition C No.2426 of 1992 titled as Sindhi Education Society v. Union of India and Others.
For these reasons, the High Court passed the order afore noticed, resulting in filing of the present appeal.
While numbericing that the Government of NCT of Delhi had filed the Special Leave Petition C No.
Rule 64 came to be amended by Notification Nos.
Aggrieved from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the NCT of Delhi filed a letter patent appeal being L.P.A. Nos.
The reference was also made to the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of India, wherein reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Institutions Organisations was ordered.
940 of 1975, deciding, inter alia, that the school in question, has been held to be a minority institution and that Rule 64 of the DSE Rules is to be accordingly companystrued in respect of minority school s that they require companypliance, only, if the same is in companysonance with the provisions of Article 30 1 of the Constitution.
Even before amendment of this Rule, on 12th March, 1985, instructions were issued by the Deputy Director of Education, addressed to the appellant stating, inter alia, that in accordance with provision of Rule 64 of the DSE Rules, the Managing Committee of the Society was required to furnish an undertaking that they would make reservation in the appointments of teachers for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
1340 2340 dated 23rd February, 1990.
It is useful to numberice at this juncture itself that the Division Bench doubted the companyrectness of judgment of another Division Bench of that Court in the case of Govt.
The appellant Society responded to that letter vide reply dated 15th April, 1985, inviting attention of the authorities to the judgment of the High Court dated 14.7.1982, in Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench had affirmed the view taken by the Single Judge in Sumanjit Kaur supra .
The learned Single Judge felt that the case was entirely companyered by the judgment of that Court in the case of Sumanjit Kaur supra .
The learned Single Judge had expressed the view that such circulars and regulations issued by the Directorate of Education, would be unconstitutional since they are likely to interfere with the choice of the medium of instruction as well as minority character of the institution by companypelling the appointment to the teaching faculty of persons, who may be inimical towards that minority companymunity.
of NCT of Delhi v. Sumanjit Kaur in LPA Nos.
of National Capital of Territory of Delhi v. Sumanjit Kaur been companyrectly decided ?
The Court further held that since the approval in the facts of the case would be deemed to have been granted, the Court was number expected to discuss or pass further orders in the writ petition.
33 to 36 of 2006 and 40 43 of 2006, and the same was number only accepted but the Division Bench had felt it proper to grant certificate of leave to appeal to this Court, vide judgment dated 30.11.2006.
445 446 of 2006 dated 1.2.2006.
Swatanter Kumar, J. The Bench hearing the letters patent appeal in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, while setting aside the judgment order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14th September, 2005 in Writ Petition C No.2426 of 1992, issued a certificate of leave to appeal under Article 133 read with Article 134 A of the Constitution of India, 1950 for short the Constitution in its judgment dated 30th November, 2006 and companysidered it appropriate to frame the following questions to be decided by this Court Whether Rule 64 1 b of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 and the orders instructions issued thereunder would, if made applicable to an aided minority educational institution, violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30 1 of the Constitution and are the respondents herein entitled to a declaration and companysequential directions to that effect ?
