S.N. Aggarwal, J. Delhi Tamil Education Association (hereinafter to be referred as the Petitioner) is a linguistic minority registered society. The said society has established seven educational institutions for imparting education from Class I to Class XII primarily to the children belonging to Tamil population living in Delhi. It has established seven schools in Mandir Marg, Pusa Road, Lodhi Road, R.K. Puram, Moti Bagh, Laxmi Bai Nagar and Janak Puri. These schools established by the petitioner society are recognized by the Government of NCT of Delhi and are receiving 95% grant from the Government. The petitioner society has appointed 33 Assistant Teachers in its schools w.e.f. 03.07.2007 pursuant to interviews held on 31.01.2007 and 01.02.2007. These teachers are stated to have not been paid their salary ever since their appointment till date for want of release of grant by the Government. 2 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of impugned communication dated 02.08.2007 received by it from the respondent whereby the clearance for appointment given vide order dated 06.07.2007 for filling up the vacant posts of teachers in the school of the petitioner society was suspended till further orders. The petitioner has further prayed for directions to the respondent to release the grant for payment of salaries to the newly appointed 33 teachers w.e.f. 03.07.2007. 3 The brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as follows:- Several posts of teachers viz. PGTs, TGTs and Assistant Teachers were lying vacant in the schools run by the petitioner society. The Director of Education (respondent herein) gave clearance to the petitioner vide its letter dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure-I at pages 34-35 of the paper book) for filling up 54 vacant posts of different categories of teachers in its schools as mentioned below:- S. No. NAME OF THE POST NO. OF POST NO. OF POST BEING GIVEN CLEARANCE UR OBC SC ST 1. PGT Physics 2 2 0 0 0 2. PGT 1 1 0 0 0 3. PGT 2 0 1 1 0 4. PGT 2 1 0 0 1 5. PGT 3 1 1 1 0 6. PGT 4 2 1 1 0 7. TGT 1 0 0 1 0 8. PET 1 0 1 0 0 9. TGT 2 1 0 1 0 10. Asstt. Teacher 34 18 9 5 2 11. PGT 2 0 1 1 0 4. PGT 2 1 0 0 1 5. PGT 3 1 1 1 0 6. PGT 4 2 1 1 0 7. TGT 1 0 0 1 0 8. PET 1 0 1 0 0 9. TGT 2 1 0 1 0 10. Asstt. Teacher 34 18 9 5 2 11. LDC 2 1 0 0 1 TOTAL 54 27 13 10 4 The clearance for the above posts was accorded by the Director of Education subject to the following conditions:- 1. All the vacant posts will be filled as per 200 point Roaster. 2. The Prospective candidates shall be called from Employment exchange of Delhi and/or shall be advertised in two leading newspapers also. 3. All the posts must have been covered under post fixation norms of 2003- 04. 4. That there should be no court case against the posts mentioned above or pending litigation/stay in any case by the Honble Court. 5. The filling of the vacancies may be completed as early as possible so that rest of the vacancies existing in your school may be given approval in the current academic session in the interest of the school children. 6. All the recruitments against the above vacant posts should be made in accordance with the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973, specially with regard to Rule 96 of SER-1973 and other relevant circulars/instructions issued by the Department from time to time and which are in force. 4 Pursuant to approval granted by the Director of Education vide letter dated 21.06.2005 referred above, the petitioner issued advertisement for the various posts of teachers in its schools in the leading newspapers in Delhi on 25.06.2005, 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005. The petitioner also notified the vacancies in the Employment Exchange vide communication dated 27.06.2005, who vide their reply dated 06.08.2005 communicated the non-availability of the suitable candidates. The recruitment process pursuant to aforementioned advertisement was, however, kept in abeyance because of certain enquiry made by the respondent on the complaint relating to reservation of posts received by it from Shri S. Natarajan, Ex-Secretary of the petitioner association. The recruitment process pursuant to aforementioned advertisement was, however, kept in abeyance because of certain enquiry made by the respondent on the complaint relating to reservation of posts received by it from Shri S. Natarajan, Ex-Secretary of the petitioner association. Since fresh clearance was not coming forth from the respondent, the petitioner took up the matter with the then Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi vide its letter dated 11.08.2006 and pursuant thereto, the respondent vide its letter dated 13.09.2006 (Annexure-Q at page 49 of the paper book) conveyed approval of competent authority to the petitioner for filling up 54 posts of teaching staff and other staff. This approval was granted subject to the condition that no eligible departmental candidate is left for promotion in the said category according to the recruitment rules notified by the Director of Education. The petitioner, thereafter, constituted a Selection Committee for selection of Assistant Teachers and in consultation with the respondent fixed two dates viz. 31.01.2007 and 01.02.2007 for holding interviews for filling up 33 vacant posts of Assistant Teachers. The interviews were held on these two dates i.e. 31.01.2007 and 01.02.2007. Mr. Kifayat Khan, Deputy Education Officer, South- West District and Mr. Zareen Taz (Subject Expert), Principal, Ramanujam SKV, Mehrauli, New Delhi who both were the nominees of the Director of Education were part of the Selection Committee. 5 After screening of applications received by the petitioner association pursuant to its advertisement dated 25.06.2005, 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, 94 candidates were called for interview for filling up of 33 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in its schools. Out of 94 candidates called for interview, 23 were from unreserved category, 16 from SC category, 01 from ST category and 54 from OBC category. Out of 94 candidates called for interview, only 63 had attended the interview and they were 16 from unreserved category, 09 from SC category, 01 from ST category and 37 from OBC category. Out of 37 OBC candidates who attended the interview, 10 of them were selected on merits against unreserved posts and 9 were selected against the posts reserved for OBC. Out of 16 unreserved category candidates who attended the interview, 7 were selected under the unreserved category, out of 9 SC candidates who attended the interview, 5 were selected in the SC category and only ST candidate who appeared for interview was selected. Out of 16 unreserved category candidates who attended the interview, 7 were selected under the unreserved category, out of 9 SC candidates who attended the interview, 5 were selected in the SC category and only ST candidate who appeared for interview was selected. Thus, 18 selections were made in unreserved category, 9 in OBC category, 5 in SC category and 1 in ST category making a select list of total 33 candidates. The minutes of the Selection Committee were signed by all the five members of the Selection Committee and the recommendations of the Selection Committee were sent by the petitioner to the respondent with complete details vide its letter dated 05.02.2007. The petitioner did not receive any response to its communication dated 05.02.2007 from the Director of Education till 03.04.2007 when a committee headed by Dr. R.K. Sharma was constituted by the Director of Education to hold an enquiry into the recruitments made for the petitioners schools pursuant to interviews held on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007. After going through the entire procedure of selection, the Enquiry Committee noticed the following discrepancies:- 1. The DTEA society has conducted interview for the selection of Assistant Teachers on 31.01.07 and 01.02.07 on the basis of advertisement issued in Delhi News Papers of 26.06.05, 26.06.05 and 28.06.05 i.e. after a lapse of period of one and half year. 2. 246 candidates applied for the post of Assistant Teachers under various categories, but only 95 candidates were called for interview after the scrutiny of applications. The DTEA authorities could not provide the procedure adopted by them for the scrutiny of the applications. It seems that the society has adopted pick and choose method for inviting the candidates for the interview. 3. The clearance for the recruitment of teachers was issued on 21.06.05 which was renewed on 13.09.06. The DTEA authorities has conducted interview on the basis of advertisement floated in the news papers on 25.06.05, 27.06.05 and 28.06.05. The DTEA authorities should have re-advertised the posts as clearance of filing up of the posts was finally issued to them on 13.09.06. 4. As per the minutes of the selection of Assistant teachers under OBC category, 10 candidates who applied under OBC category and also interviewed with other candidates under the same category have been recommended as selected under general category on the basis on merit. 4. As per the minutes of the selection of Assistant teachers under OBC category, 10 candidates who applied under OBC category and also interviewed with other candidates under the same category have been recommended as selected under general category on the basis on merit. The DPC while doing so have ignored 200 point reservation roaster as the number of OBC candidate have gone up the number of seats reserved for the same category. 5. The marks awarded to the candidates for interview has also been compared viz-a-viz the marks allotted to them on the basis of their academic qualifications. It has been noticed that in case of many candidates, less marks have been awarded during the interview (while they were having good marks in their academic performance) just to bring them down in the merit. 6. A panel of six candidate under UR category and 4 candidates under OBC category valid for one year for future vacancies have also been recommended by the DPC. Such recommendation was not advisable. 7. In ST category only 2 candidates against the vacancies of two vacant post were called for interview. Out of these two, only one candidate has been selected. The DPC could have postponed the interview and more candidates could have been called for interview by re-advertising the post to provide better opportunities for selection. 6 In view of the above discrepancies noticed by the Enquiry Committee, the Enquiry Committee recommended to the Director of Education that the entire process of selection of Assistant Teachers be scraped and the petitioner association be directed to restart the entire process of selection. The Enquiry report is at pages 67-71 of the paper book. A copy of the Enquiry report was sent by the Director of Education to the petitioner association vide its letter dated 08.06.2007 asking the petitioner to submit its comments on the said report within three days of the receipt of the said letter. 7 The petitioner, in response to the above report, furnished a detailed reply vide its letter dated 18.06.2007 which is at pages 72-80 of the writ petition. The petitioner submitted parawise comments to the above report stating clearly that there was no irregularities in the selection process. 7 The petitioner, in response to the above report, furnished a detailed reply vide its letter dated 18.06.2007 which is at pages 72-80 of the writ petition. The petitioner submitted parawise comments to the above report stating clearly that there was no irregularities in the selection process. It was inter- alia submitted in the reply that the :- (i)there has been no delay exceeding 6 months after the revalidation clearance given on 13.09.2006; (ii)no procedure other than the conditions laid down in the advertisement was adopted for scrutiny; (iii)In fact these posts were advertised on the basis of their clearance dated 21.06.2005. Applications were received scruitnised and Broad Sheet prepared and authenticated by the E.O. Zone, 19 R.K. Puram; (iv)Their clearance dated 13.09.2006 is not a fresh one rather it has revalidated their earlier clearance; (v) The SSC has rightly selected 10 OBC candidates on their merit against unreserved vacancies in terms of the instructions contained in para 8.6 of chapter 9 of the “Brochure on Reservations and Concessions for SC, ST, OBC classes: (2004 Edition). (vi) The marks have been awarded by a committee which includes Govt. nominee also and not by an individual and hence there is no element of bias; 8 The petitioner in its reply dated 18.06.2007 had informed the respondent that there was no procedural lapses in the recruitment of 33 Assistant Teachers. It was mentioned in the reply that there was no dissent note/disagreement on the part of the nominees of the Director of the Education who had signed the minutes of the selection held on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007. The minutes of the Staff Selection Committee were sent to the Director of Education within 7 days of the meeting of the Staff Selection Committee and nothing was heard from the Director of Education against it. The minutes of the Staff Selection Committee held on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 stood thereby approved by the Director of Education in view of Rule 98 (3) and (4) of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973. 9 The respondent vide its communication dated 06.07.2007 in respect of all the aided schools including the petitioners schools granted clearance to fill up the vacancies. However, vide impugned order dated 02.08.2007 approval granted vide order dated 06.07.2007 was ordered to be kept under suspension till further order and it is this communication which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. However, vide impugned order dated 02.08.2007 approval granted vide order dated 06.07.2007 was ordered to be kept under suspension till further order and it is this communication which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 10 In response to notice of the present writ petition, the respondent has filed its counter affidavit in which it is inter-alia stated that the respondent after giving its clearance to the petitioner society vide its letter dated 06.07.2007 had received allegations from the various sources alleging irregularities in the process of selection. It is stated that the petitioner was asked by the Director of Education to put all the appointments to the post of Assistant Teachers on hold till the time enquiry in terms of its letter dated 08.06.2007 was complete. The respondent has referred to the discrepancies in the selection process noticed by the Enquiry Committee and on that basis, it is alleged that the selection of the teachers made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 suffered from various irregularities. The respondent has pointed out in the counter affidavit that the Enquiry Committee had specifically requested the petitioner association to supply the following documents:- (a) The criteria for calling the candidates for interview with reason of rejection of the candidates, not invited for interview or rejecting their application on any grounds. Details of the individual candidates is required. (b) Certified photocopy of date of birth, Educational qualification and Degree, Certificates, Mark sheet (Class-X to highest qualification in the case of selected candidates) (c) Experience Certificates (Copy) of selected candidates those who have awarded benefits of this certificate. (d) Any other records as desired by the Committee. According to the respondent, the decision by the Enquiry Committee was delayed on account of failure of the petitioner in not providing the relevant records. The respondent has further alleged that the petitioner society has violated the terms and conditions of the letter dated 06.07.2007 and has defended the impugned order dated 02.08.2007 stating that the said order was passed by the respondent in all fairness and in consonance with the Rules. The respondent has further alleged that the petitioner society has violated the terms and conditions of the letter dated 06.07.2007 and has defended the impugned order dated 02.08.2007 stating that the said order was passed by the respondent in all fairness and in consonance with the Rules. 11 The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the respondent in which it is inter-alia stated that there was no violation on the part of the petitioner of the letter dated 06.07.2007 and that the entire records pertaining to the selection of the teachers made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 were placed before the Enquiry Committee and that selection made was duly communicated to the respondent by the petitioner vide its letter dated 05.02.2007. The petitioner has reiterated in the rejoinder affidavit that the nominees of the Director of Education had participated in the selection process and affixed their signatures in acceptance of the valid selection process and cannot now go back and contend that the entire selection is vitiated. 12 The respondent filed an additional affidavit on 28.04.2008 stating inter-alia that the nominee of the Director of Education was not present in the Enquiry and that the entire selection process is illegal and unjustified. The following new grounds were taken by the respondent in additional affidavit filed on 28.04.2008:- (i) The petitioner society could not complete the selection process within six months. (ii) Maximum age for eligibility to apply for the post of Assistant Teachers was wrongly mentioned as 32 years for male and 42 years for female. (iii) Out of 34 posts of Assistant Teachers, only 9 posts were reserved for OBCs whereas the petitioner association has appointed 19 OBC candidates. (iv) SC/ST/OBC candidates did not submit certificates from the State of origin of NCT of Delhi. 13 The petitioner filed its reply to the aforementioned additional affidavit of the respondent stating inter-alia that it is not open to the respondent to raise new grounds to justify its illegal action and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Gill Vs. Chief Election Commission. It was submitted that there was no irregularities in the recruitments made and interviews were conducted in the presence of the respondents nominee who fully participated in the selection process and the results were communicated to the respondent by the petitioner vide its letter dated 05.02.2007. Chief Election Commission. It was submitted that there was no irregularities in the recruitments made and interviews were conducted in the presence of the respondents nominee who fully participated in the selection process and the results were communicated to the respondent by the petitioner vide its letter dated 05.02.2007. As regards the age limit of 32/42 as mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner placed reliance on the advertisement issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi on 29.01.2005 in which similar age limits were prescribed for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government schools in Delhi. The petitioner further clarified that 10 out of 19 OBC candidates were selected on merits against unreserved seats and the same was duly approved by the Selection Committee in its minutes of meeting held on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007. The petitioner has stated that the appointment of 10 OBC candidates on merits against unreserved posts is in line with the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 . With regard to SC/ST/OBC certificates, it was submitted that the petitioner association being a linguistic minority and that the candidates are required to impart Tamil as a medium of instruction in the primary classes, the said condition could not be imposed. It was accordingly submitted that the respondent could not raise new and untenable grounds to support its illegal and malafide action contained in the impugned order dated 02.08.2007. 14 Mr. G. Umapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had vehemently argued that the objection regarding alleged irregularities in the selection process taken by the respondent is not tenable in law in view of provisions contained in Rule 98 (3) and (4) of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973. It was argued that two nominees of the Director of Education namely Mr. Kifayat Khan and Mr. Zareen Taz were the members of the Selection Committee and they had duly approved the selection by appending their signatures to the minutes of the Selection Committee with regard to the selection of 33 Assistant Teachers held on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 intimation whereof was sent to the Director of Education by the petitioner vide its letter dated 05.02.2007 received in the office of Director of Education on 06.02.2007. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had argued that though in terms of Rule 98(2), the approval of Director of Education was not required but according to him, even if the said approval was required, the approval is deemed to have been granted to the petitioner in view of provisions contained in Rule 98 (4) since the respondent did not convey its disapproval to such appointments within 15 days of the receipt of the communication dated 05.02.2007 regarding selections made by the Selection Committee. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further argued that because of deemed approval to the appointment of the teachers selected by the Selection Committee on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007, the teachers who had joined in the schools of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.07.2007 became entitled for their salaries/allowances from the date of their appointment in view of provisions contained in Rule 98 (4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. He, accordingly, requested that this Court may direct the respondent to immediately release 95% grant for payment of salaries to the teachers appointed pursuant to selection made on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007. 15 Initially the case was argued on behalf of the respondent by Ms. Anusuya Salwan but later on arguments were picked up by Ms. Monica Sharma who appeared in the matter on her institutions. It was argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the respondent is not liable to release the salaries of the teachers appointed in the schools of the petitioner pursuant to selection made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 because their appointment is contrary to the sanction granted by the Director of Education vide letters dated 21.06.2005, 13.09.2006 and 06.07.2007. The main plank of the arguments on behalf of the respondent was that the petitioner association was required to complete the entire selection process within six months of the advertisement of the vacancies which were advertised by the petitioner on 25.06.2005, 27.05.2005 and 28.06.2005. The argument was that since the petitioner failed to complete the selection process within six months of the advertisement of the vacancies, the appointments made by the petitioner pursuant to selection made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 are illegal and therefore the respondent is not under an obligation to release the grant for payment of salaries to such teachers. The argument was that since the petitioner failed to complete the selection process within six months of the advertisement of the vacancies, the appointments made by the petitioner pursuant to selection made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 are illegal and therefore the respondent is not under an obligation to release the grant for payment of salaries to such teachers. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has further argued that since the petitioner did not supply the entire record relating to the recruitment of teachers made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 to the Enquiry Committee, the respondent could not ascertain whether the appointments made by the petitioner were in accordance with the rules or not. 16 I have carefully gone through the entire record placed before me and have also given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. 17 The question that needs consideration in this petition is whether the respondent can hold back the grant for payment of salaries to the teachers appointed in the schools of the petitioner pursuant to selection made on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 on the basis of alleged irregularities in their appointments pointed out in the enquiry report or in the report filed by the respondent in the present proceedings on 09.07.2008. 18 Chapter VIII of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 deals with the rules relating to recruitment and terms and conditions of service of employees of the private schools other than unaided minority schools. Provisions of Sections 96 and 98 of the said Rules are relevant and the same are extracted below:- “96. Recruitment.-(1) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school. (2) Recruitment of employees in each recognized private school shall be made on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Provisions of Sections 96 and 98 of the said Rules are relevant and the same are extracted below:- “96. Recruitment.-(1) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall apply to an unaided minority school. (2) Recruitment of employees in each recognized private school shall be made on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. (3) The Selection Committee shall consist of: (a) In the case of recruitment of the head of the school.- (i) the Chairman of the managing committee; (ii) in the case of an unaided school, an educationist is nominated by the managing committee, and an educationist nominated by the Director; (iii) In the case of an aided school, two educationists nominated by the Director, out of whom at least one shall be a person having experience of school education; (iv) A person having experience of the administration of schools, to be nominated, in the case of an unaided school by the managing committee, or in the case of an aided school, by the Director; (b) In the case of an appointment of a teacher (other than the head of the school): (i) the Chairman of the managing committee or a member of the managing committee nominated by the Chairman; (ii) the head of the school; (iii) in the case of a primary school, a female educationist having experience of school education; (iv) in the case of an aided school, one educationist to be nominated by the Director and one representative of the Director; (v) in the case of appointment of a teacher for any class in the middle stage or any class in the higher secondary stage, an expert on the subject in relation to which the teacher is proposed to be appointed, to be nominated, in the case of an unaided school by the managing committee, or in the case of an aided school, by the Director. (c) in the case of an appointment of any other employee, not being an employee belonging to {Group-D}: (i) the Chairman of the managing committee or a member of the managing committee, to be nominated by the Chairman; (ii) the head of the school; (iii) a nominee of the Director; (iv) in the case of an aided school, two officers having experience of the administration of school, to be nominated by the Director; (d) In the case of an appointment of a Group D employee: (i) the Chairman of the managing committee or a member of the managing committee nominated by the Chairman; (ii) the head of the school.] {(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3), in the case of an aided minority school, the educationists nominated under paragraph (iii) of clause (a) of sub-rule (3), persons nominated by the Director under paragraph (iv) of clause (a) of sub-rule (3), educationists nominated under paragraph (iv) of clause (b) of sub-rule (3), an expert nominated under paragraph (v) of clause (b) of sub-rule (3), a person nominated under paragraph (iii) of the clause (c) of sub-rule (3), officers nominated under paragraph (iv) of clause (c) of sub- rule (3), a person nominated under paragraph (iii) of clause 9b) of sub-rule (3), shall act only as advisers and will not have the power to vote or actually control the selection of an employee. (3B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3), the Selection Committee of a minority school shall not be limited by the number specified in the said sub-rule and its managing committee may fix such number. (4) Nomination of any educationist or expert as a member of the Selection Committee shall be made out of a panel prepared for the purpose by the Advisory Board. (5) The Chairman of the managing committee, or, where he is not a member of the selection committee, the member of the managing committee who is nominated by the Chairman to be a member of the Selection Committee, shall be the Chairman to the Selection Committee. (6) The Selection Committee shall regulate its own procedure. (7) Where any selection made by the Selection Committee is not acceptable to the managing committee of the school, the managing committee shall record its reasons for such non-acceptance and refer the matter to the Director for his decision and the Director shall decide the same. (6) The Selection Committee shall regulate its own procedure. (7) Where any selection made by the Selection Committee is not acceptable to the managing committee of the school, the managing committee shall record its reasons for such non-acceptance and refer the matter to the Director for his decision and the Director shall decide the same. (8) Where a candidate for recruitment to any post in a recognized school is related to any member of the Selection Committee, the member to whom he is related shall not participate in the selection and a new member shall be nominated, in the case of any aided school, by the Director, and in the case of any other school, by the managing committee, in place of such member. (9) No managing committee shall entertain any application for employment from a person who is already serving as teacher in a recognised school, whether aided or not, unless the application from such person is duly forwarded by the manager of the school in which such applicant is serving : Provided that every application from such person shall be forwarded by the manager, but any application in excess of three in a year shall not be forwarded unless the managing committee, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, so directs : provided further that no such teacher shall be relieved of his duties except after the expiry of a period of :- (i) three months, in the case of a permanent teacher, from the date on which notice of intimation to leave the school is given; and (ii) one month, in the case of a teacher who is not permanent, from the date on which notice of intimation to leave the school is given : Provided also where the managing committee is in a position to prove for a substitute for such teacher earlier than the respective period specified in the foregoing committee may relieve the teacher of his duties on the expiry of such earlier period. 98. Appointing authority “ (i) The appointment of every employee of a school shall be made by its managing committee. 98. Appointing authority “ (i) The appointment of every employee of a school shall be made by its managing committee. (2) Every appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school shall, initially, be provisional and shall require the approval of the Director : Provided that the approval of the Director will be required only where Directors nominee was not present in the Selection Committee/DPC or in case there is difference of opinion among the members of the Selection Committee :- (3) The particulars of every appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school shall be communicated by such committee to the Director (either by registered post acknowledgment due or by messenger who will obtain an acknowledgment of the receipt thereof), within seven days from the date on which the appointment is made. (4) The Director shall be deemed to have approved an appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school if within fifteen days from the date on which the particulars of the appointment are communicated to him under sub-rule (3), he does not intimate to the managing committee his disapproval of the appointment, [and the person so appointed shall be entitled for his salary and allowance from the date of his appointment]. (5) Where any appointment made by the managing committee of an aided school is not approved by the Director, such an appointment may (pending the regular appointment to the post) be continued on an adhoc basis for a period not exceeding three months and the salary and allowances of the person so continued on an adhoc basis shall qualify for the computation of the aid to be given to such school. 19 The schools run by the petitioner association are aided recognized minority schools. In terms of Rule 96 (3A) referred above, the nominees of the Director of Education were to act only as advisers in the Selection Committee and they had no power to vote or actually control the selection of teachers. However, in the present case, a reference to the minutes of the Selection Committee would reveal that the minutes of the Selection Committee held on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007 were signed by all the five members and no dissent/ disagreement was recorded by any member with regard to selection of any candidate in the said minutes. However, in the present case, a reference to the minutes of the Selection Committee would reveal that the minutes of the Selection Committee held on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007 were signed by all the five members and no dissent/ disagreement was recorded by any member with regard to selection of any candidate in the said minutes. A reference to Rule 98 (2) extracted above would show that the petitioner, being a minority aided schools was not required to take any approval from the Director of Education for making appointments in its schools. No such approval was even otherwise required because two nominees of the Director of Education were members of the Selection Committee and had participated in the selection process held on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007. The Rules referred above gives a complete autonomy to the management of the petitioner association in the matter of selection of teachers for its schools from amongst the qualified candidates. No fatter can be put on the powers of the Managing Committee of aided minority schools in matter relating to selection of teachers. In the case of Brahmo Samaj Education Society and Ors vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 244 it was held by the Honble Supreme Court in para 7 of its judgment as under:- “7. But that control cannot extend to the day-to-day administration of the institution. It is categorically stated in T.M.A Pai (cited supra at page 551, paragraph 72) that the State can regulate the method of selection and appointment of teachers after prescribing requisite qualification for the same. Independence for the selection of teachers among the qualified candidates is fundamental to the maintenance of the academic and administrative autonomy of an aided institution. The State can very well provide the basic qualification for teachers. Under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has laid down qualifications to a teaching post in a University by passing regulations. As per this regulations, UGC conducts National Educational Testing (NET) for determining teaching eligibility of candidates. UGC has also authorized accredited Stated to conduct State Level Eligibility Test (SLET). Only a person who has qualified NET or SLET will be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an aided institution. This is the required basic qualification of a teacher. As per this regulations, UGC conducts National Educational Testing (NET) for determining teaching eligibility of candidates. UGC has also authorized accredited Stated to conduct State Level Eligibility Test (SLET). Only a person who has qualified NET or SLET will be eligible for appointment as a teacher in an aided institution. This is the required basic qualification of a teacher. Petitioners right to administer includes the right to appoint teachers of its choice among the NET/SLET qualified candidates.” 20 In the case of Secretary Malankar Syrian Catholic College Vs. T. Jose and Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 386 , it was held by the Honble Supreme Court in para 21 of the said judgment as under:- “21. We may also recapitulate the extent of regulation by the State, permissible in respect of employees of minority educational institutions receiving aid from the State, as clarified and crystalised in TMA Pai. The State can prescribe:- (i) the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments. (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff. (iii) a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees. (iv) the conditions for the proper utilization of the aid by the educational institutions, without abridging or diluting the right to establish and administer educational institutions. In other words, all laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions, and grant of aid, will apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to minority institutions. 21 In view of the above judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and also having regard to the statutory provisions contained in Rule 98 (2) referred above, the selection of Assistant Teachers made by the Selection Committee which included two nominees of the Director of Education also on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 did not require any formal approval from the Director of Education. It may be noted that the respondent has not disputed that it had received the communication dated 05.02.2007 from the petitioner association on 06.02.2007 regarding particulars of candidates selected by the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the schools of the petitioner association. It may be noted that the respondent has not disputed that it had received the communication dated 05.02.2007 from the petitioner association on 06.02.2007 regarding particulars of candidates selected by the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the schools of the petitioner association. It is also admitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent did not convey its disapproval to the selection made by the Selection Committee on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007 within 15 days of the receipt of the communication. Therefore, even if any approval to the appointment was required from the Director of Education, then such approval was deemed to have been granted in view of provisions contained in Rule 98 (4) of the Rules extracted above. The respondent cannot be permitted to reopen the issue regarding legality of the appointments made by the petitioner association pursuant to selection held on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007. In case the respondent was serious about its objection that selection process was vitiated as it was not completed within 6 months from the date of advertisement then why the Director of Education sent his two nominees to participate in the selection process. The Director of Education at that point of time could have informed the petitioner that because of lapse of long time, the vacancies for which interviews were scheduled on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 should be re-advertised. Having not done that the respondent is now estopped from turning back and take an objection on the ground of delay in completing the selection process. It shall further be relevant to mention that the respondent never raised the issue either in the counter affidavit or in the enquiry report that SC/ST/OBC certificates should be of Delhi origin or that the recruitment has been made beyond six months of the date of the advertisement. The respondent in fact has not given any reason in the impugned order dated 02.08.2007 to keep the order dated 06.07.2007 giving clearance to the petitioner to fill up the vacant posts of Teachers in its schools under suspension till further orders. The respondent cannot now be permitted to substitute the reasons which do not find mention in the impugned order dated 02.08.2007. It is well settled that an order under challenge has to be tested on the reasons contained in the impugned order. The respondent cannot now be permitted to substitute the reasons which do not find mention in the impugned order dated 02.08.2007. It is well settled that an order under challenge has to be tested on the reasons contained in the impugned order. The respondent has sought to raise new and untenable reasons to support the impugned order dated 02.08.2007 and the same is wholly un-permissible. It was held by the Honble Supreme court in M.S. Gill Vs. CEC (1978) 1 SCC 405 as under:- “When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons as mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” 22 In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order under challenge is arbitrary, unjust, unfair and unreasonable. The impugned order dated 02.08.2007 has resulted in depriving the teachers of their salaries because of non release of grant by the respondent in accordance with the provisions contained in the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 referred hereinabove. 23 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, this Court is of the considered view that the Teachers appointed in the schools of the petitioner pursuant to selection held on 31.01.2007/ 01.02.2007 are entitled for release of their salaries together with allowances in view of provision contained in Rule 98 (4) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. A similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Surender Singh Vs. Manager, Haryana Shakti Sr. Secondary School 95 (2000) DLT 135 wherein it was held that under Rule 98 (4), the approval of appointments by the Director of Education is deemed to have been granted if not objected within 15 days. The same view was taken by this Court in yet another judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar Tyagi Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. WP(C) No. 813/2006 decided on 17.04.2007. It seems that Rule 98 (4) contains a salutary provision intended to obviate impasse of persons commencing their employment and later on being told that their appointment was illegal and non-est. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. WP(C) No. 813/2006 decided on 17.04.2007. It seems that Rule 98 (4) contains a salutary provision intended to obviate impasse of persons commencing their employment and later on being told that their appointment was illegal and non-est. In the present case, the Teachers appointed by the petitioner pursuant to selection held on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007 have worked in the schools of the petitioner for over two years and now they cannot be told that their appointment is illegal. In my view, the respondent is certainly under an obligation to release the grant necessary for payment of salaries and allowances to the Teachers appointed by the petitioner pursuant to selection held on 31.01.2007/01.02.2007. Hence, the impugned communication dated 02.08.2007 is hereby quashed and the respondent is directed to release the grant for payment of salaries to the newly appointed Teachers who have joined the schools of the petitioner w.e.f. 03.07.2007. The grant be released by the respondent within a period of 2 months. 24 In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.