CONT.CAS(C)/1732/2026 of SUNITA SINGH & ORS. Vs SH. SHATRUJIT KAPUR & ORS. on 23 September 2026

O R D E R

% 23.09.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging deliberate violation of an order dated 07.07.2026 in W.P.(C) 8469/2025 [Sunita Singh and Ors. v. Directorate of Education and Ors.].

2. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Mohit Mudgal, leaned counsel for the respondents.

3. W.P.(C) 8469/2025 was filed by nine teachers of ITBP Public School seeking regulation and seniority in the employment of the School, and also challenging a advertisement dated 01.06.2025, by which the School has advertised contractual vacancies for various teaching positions.

4. By an order dated 02.07.2025, this Court had recorded the submission on behalf of the School that the petitioners would be reappointed on a contractual basis for the current academic year, i.e. until 31.03.2026, on the same terms and conditions, as they were appointed for the year before. The question for regularisation was kept pending.

5. By a further order dated 17.03.2026, this Court directed the School to submit a proposal for regularisation of the petitioners to the Directorate of Education [“DoE”] within two weeks, and also directed the DoE to take a decision thereupon within two weeks thereafter. In view of the fact that the extent of vacancies would depend upon the outcome of the regularisation process, a subsequent recruitment advertisement dated 26.02.2026, issued by the School, was kept in abeyance.

6. The matter was next listed on 07.07.2026, when the Court recorded that the DoE had sought certain clarifications with regard to the School’s proposal for regularisation. By the said order, the Court directed the School to furnish a point-wise response to the DoE within three weeks.

7. The contempt petition is predicated on two alleged violations of the order dated 07.07.2026 – [a] that no response by the School was submitted within the time granted by the Court; and [b] that the School is overreaching the orders of the Court by publishing yet another recruitment advertisement in July 2026, despite the interim orders referred to above.

8. As far as the first aspect is concerned, Mr. Mohit Mudgal, learned counsel for the School, states that the DoE required submission of a proposal with the approval from the School Management Committee. However, the School Management Committee was able to meet only on 21.09.2026, and the proposal has, in fact, been submitted yesterday, i.e.

22.09.2026. It is directed that any further queries raised by the DoE will be answered by the School within a period of one week thereafter, so that the proposal for regularisation can be taken to its logical conclusion.

9. As far as the second aspect is concerned, Mr. Mudgal submits that no recruitment will be undertaken pursuant to the advertisement issued in July 2026, so as to disturb the position of the petitioners in the writ petition. If any recruitment is made, it will be for vacancies other than those occupied by the petitioners, and will be without prejudice to the petitioners’ claim for regularisation, which is pending approval of the DoE and also pending adjudication before this Court.

10. In view of the above position, it is not necessary to initiate contempt proceedings in this case. However, the respondents are bound to the directions recorded above.

11. The contempt petition stands disposed of in these terms. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 ‘pv’/KA/