National Minority Commission initiates inquiry into Minority Status of Victoria Girls School

New Delhi, March 18, 2025 – The National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) has taken cognizance of a complaint challenging the minority status of Victoria Girls Senior Secondary School, located at Rajpur Road, Delhi.

 

The case has been filed by Mrs. Charu Singh Rathore, Vice Principal of Victoria Girls Senior Secondary School. The petitioner argued for the cancellation of the school’s minority status citing alleged non-compliance with minority student admission requirements.

 

The complaint invokes Section 12C of the NCMEI Act, 2004, which empowers the Commission to revoke minority status if an institution alters its objectives or fails to admit students from the designated minority community in prescribed numbers.

During the hearing, the petitioner relied upon a Supreme Court’s 7 Judge-Bench judgment titled ‘P.A. Inamdar & Others v. State of Maharashtra’, (2005) 6 SCC 537, and referred to past rulings emphasizing that while minority institutions are not solely defined by admission percentages, they must maintain a reasonable representation of the concerned community.

 

Taking note of the arguments, the Commission has officially registered the complaint and issued notices to the respondents, including the school’s management and the Directorate of Education, Government of Delhi. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on July 24, 2025.

 

This case could have significant implications for the interpretation of minority rights in educational institutions across the country.

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/202503271743081945Minority%20Commission-Charu%20Singh%20Rathore.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

 

Expiry of waiting panel is not a valid ground for keeping the vacancies unfilled – Appointment on the post of Warder (Male) (post code 86/17) in Prison Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi

Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi

27.02.2025

 

Expiry of waiting panel is not a valid ground for keeping the vacancies unfilled – Appointment on the post of Warder (Male) (post code 86/17) in Prison Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi

 

Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 27.02.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No. 2410/2021, are reproduced below for ready reference: -

 

“24. We find that the DSSSB although has rightly maintained the panel for one year only, however, it ought to have considered operating the same in terms of the DOP&T instructions referred to above.

 

25. Given the above, the present Original Application is allowed with direction to the respondent – DSSSB to consider the candidature of the applicants for appointment on the post of Warder (Male) as per their merit within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the applicant is otherwise eligible, the DSSSB shall forward their dossier to user department for further action for appointment. No costs.”

 

[Sahil Lohchab & Ors. Vs. DSSSB & Ors., OA No. 2410/2021, decided on 27.02.2025, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025032117425693942025%20CAT%20-%20Sahil%20Lohchab.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Application under Section 33 (C) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be rejected on the ground that the workman has not enclosed a copy of demand notice – Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court

13.01.2025

 

Application under Section 33 (C) (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be rejected on the ground that the workman has not enclosed a copy of demand notice – Delhi High Court

 

Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 13.01.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: -

 

“1. In furtherance of last order, learned counsel for both respondents have appeared with instructions. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 on instructions undertakes to initiate the recovery proceedings in question within one week. It appears that the application dated 30.08.2024 of the petitioner seeking implementation of award dated 25.04.2023 passed in ID 53/2019 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted copy of the demand notice and proof of service thereof. Once there was a labour court award, there was no occasion for rejection of the application on such frivolous ground.

 

2. Nevertheless, in view of undertaking submitted on behalf of respondent no.1, the petition is allowed with the directions to respondent no.1 to initiate the recovery proceedings in terms with the said award within one week from today. Pending applications stands disposed of.”

 

[Umakant Malakar Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner & Anr., WPC No. 228/2025, Delhi High Court, decided on 13.01.2025]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025032017424797652024%20Del%20Single%20-%20UMAKANT%20MALAKAR.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD – Petitioner cannot be allowed to change her category from UR, as filled in the application form, to that of OBC

06.03.2025

Delhi High Court (DB)

 

Appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary) in MCD – Petitioner cannot be allowed to change her category from UR, as filled in the application form, to that of OBC

 

[Soni Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., WPC No. 4035/2019, decided on 06.03.2025, Delhi High Court (DB)]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025032017424789892025%20Del%20DB%20-%20Soni.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Supreme Court of India - Violation of Section 8 (2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Termination of service prior to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Raj Kumar Vs. DOE & Ors.’ [ (2016) 6 SCC 541] – Whether School was bound to take prior approval from the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Supreme Court of India

28.02.2025

 

Violation of Section 8 (2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – Termination of service prior to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Raj Kumar Vs. DOE & Ors.’ [ (2016) 6 SCC 541] – Whether School was bound to take prior approval from the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Admitting the Special Leave Petition (SLP), Supreme Court directed the school to pay 50% of the outstanding amount (i.e., back wages and retiral dues) to the superannuated teacher and to deposit the remaining 50% outstanding amount in the Supreme Court – The SLP was filed by the school challenging the Order dated 08.10.2024, passed by Delhi High Court (DB), whereby the Delhi High Court allowed the Appeal filed by the teacher and directed the school to pay full back wages and all retiral dues to the superannuated teacher – Teacher was terminated from service by the school on 06.06.2013, on the alleged misconduct of inflicting corporal punishment to a student

 

[Ravindra Memorial Public School Vs. Asha Rani Gupta & Anr., S.L.P. (C) No. 3226/2025, Date of Order – 28.02.2025, Supreme Court of India]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025032017424764962025%20SC%20-%20Asha%20Rani%20(Merged).pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

24 years full back wages - Illegal termination of service of a DTC conductor - Violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Workman is entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation – Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), filed by DTC, dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- by Delhi High Court (Division Bench)

07.03.2025

Delhi High Court (DB)

 

24 years full back wages - Illegal termination of service of a DTC conductor - Violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Workman is entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation – Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), filed by DTC, dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- by Delhi High Court (Division Bench)

 

Directive paragraphs of the order dated 07.03.2025, passed by the division bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 690/2018, titled ‘DTC Vs. Ram’, reads as under: -

 

“22. There is the further argument of the Appellant in respect of Article 311 and its non-application insofar as the Appellant is concerned. Once the termination has already been held to be illegal on grounds of Section 33 of the Act and the lack of an enquiry, there arises no need for us to enter into that arena.

 

23. In view of our discussion above, while affirming the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present Appeals and the same are, consequently, dismissed.

 

24. While parting however, we would like to express our extreme displeasure at the manner in which the Appellant, who, for at least three decades, if not more, has constrained a former employee, a conductor at the time of his termination, to continue litigating for his rights. This is all the more striking in view of the fact that all similarly placed persons had already been given the benefits by the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 2017 itself. Despite the same, the present Appeal came to be filed sometime in 2018.

 

25. We believe that such rote filing of appeals should be discouraged and accordingly direct that the Appellant shall, within a period of three weeks, disburse to the workman, all the benefits he would be entitled to, as a consequence of the present Judgment. The Appellant shall, in addition to the costs awarded vide orders dated 10.12.2018 [in LPA 690/2018] and 12.12.2018 [in LPA 707/2018], within three weeks, pay the Respondent a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty-Five Thousand Only) for the protracted litigation that it has forced the workman to endure.

 

26. The present appeals and all pending applications, if any, are disposed of in the above terms.”

 

[DTC Vs. Ram, LPA No. 690/2018, DOD – 07.03.2025, Delhi High Court (DB)]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025032017424749202025%20Del%20DB%20-%20DTC%20Vs.%20Ram.pdf

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com

 

Guest Teacher – Age relaxation – Appointment on the post of PET – For the purpose of age relaxation, it is not necessary that the candidate must be working as a guest teacher when the vacancies are advertised by DSSSB, held CAT

12.03.2025

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi

 

Guest Teacher – Age relaxation – Appointment on the post of PET – For the purpose of age relaxation, it is not necessary that the candidate must be working as a guest teacher when the vacancies are advertised by DSSSB, held CAT

 

Directive paragraphs of the Order dated 12.03.2025 reads as under: -

“9. On perusal of the short reply filed by the Department of Education (DoE), we note that DoE has kept the candidature of the applicant on hold awaiting the final decision in the matter. The advertisement was issued on 04.01.2020, which is the time of Winter vacation in Delhi Govt. schools. During vacation, even otherwise, the Guest Teachers are disengaged and they are not paid. As such, going by this logic, none of the Guest Teachers could have applied for regular recruitment.

 

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the OA is allowed and respondents are directed to consider and grant the applicant, age relaxation given the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Lt. Governor. Further, the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-DoE is directed to consider and issue an offer of appointment with notional benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.”

 

[Arun Dalal Vs. DSSSB & Ors., OA No. 2269/2024, decided on 12.03.2025, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi]

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php

 

https://advocateanujaggarwal.com/advocateadmin/img/Finalist/2025031817422994802025%20CAT%20-%20Arun%20Dalal.pdf

 

Anuj Aggarwal

Advocate

D-26/A, First Floor, Jangpura Extension,

New Delhi - 110014

 

483, Block-2, Lawyers Chambers,

Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003

Mobile – 9891403206

Landline – 011 - 35554905

Email – anujaggarwal1984@gmail.com