Service Law: Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921: ss. 16-E, 16-FF – Appointment of teachers in minority institutions – Procedure for selection and appointment – Initiation of the process of selection of teachers – Proposals forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools-DIOS for approval – However, before the grant of the requisite approval, Regn 17 was amended, prescribing a new selection procedure – Thereafter, DIOS returned the proposal for compliance with the new procedure – Writ petitions challenging the decision of DIOS – High Court held that once the names are forwarded for approval of the DIOS, the selection process concludes and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed; and that the vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules have to be governed by the Rules that existed at the time such vacancies arose – On appeal, held: Approval of DIOS is mandatory for appointment and that the Act injuncts the appointment of a teacher without such approval – Legal regime does not contemplate any concept of deemed appointment if the DIOS does not decide upon the proposal within 15 days – Reliance on the principle that Rules that existed at the time when vacancies arose will govern the appointments is misplaced – Candidate has a right to be considered in the light of existing Rules, which implies Rules in force as on the date of consideration – On facts, the process of appointment cannot be said to have been concluded without obtaining the mandatory approval of the DIOS, and as such, there is no vested right of the candidate to be appointed before the amendment of Regulation – Unless the approval contemplated u/s. 16-FF(3) is accorded, no appointment could take place – Thus, the appointment would be governed by the amended Regulations which is in force at the time of consideration – High Court erred in holding that the shortlisted candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed – Order passed by the High Court is set aside – Regn 17, 18. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (3) of section 16-FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 provides that no person selected and proposed to be appointed as a teacher by the Management shall be appointed till the proposal is approved by the DIOS. If the expressions ‘no person’, ‘shall be appointed’, and ‘unless’ employed in sub-section (3) are given their ordinary meaning, which is the foremost of the linguistic canons of construction of legislation, there is no hesitation in holding that appointment is subject to the mandatory approval of DIOS. The process of appointment cannot be said to have been concluded without obtaining the mandatory approval of the DIOS, and as such, there is no right, much less a vested right, of the candidate to be appointed. Thus, in view of the clear statutory mandate under Section 16-FF(3) of the Act, the High Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have acquired a vested right to be appointed. [Paras 19, 21][979-D-E; 980-E]
1.2 The appointments are to be made under Section 16-E of the Act. Section 16-F of the Act provides for the constitution and recommendation of Selection Committees and Section 16FF therein specifically relates to minority institutions. Regulation 18(1) provides for the time within which an order of appointment is to be issued by a Manager to the selected candidate. According to which, where the recommendation is made by a Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 16-F of the Act, an order of appointment is to be issued within 15 days of the receipt of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Whereas, in the case of an institution referred to in Section 16-FF of the Act, i.e., a minority institution, as in the instant case, it is to be issued within 15 days of the receipt of the approval of the authority specified therein. Neither Section 16-FF of the Act nor Regulation 18 provides the period within which approval is to be accorded. Further, neither of the two provisions provide for deemed appointment in the event of delay in granting approval. Therefore, unless the approval contemplated under Section 16-FF(3) is accorded, no appointment could take place. [Para 23][981-E-G]
& ORS.
1.3 In any case, when the relevant statutory provision, i.e. Section 16-FF(3) itself makes approval by DIOS mandatory for appointment to the post of teacher, a Regulation made under the Act could not have provided for a ‘deemed appointment’. Subordinate legislation cannot transcend the prescription of a statutory provision. Additionally, sub-section (4) of Section 16FF of the Act has to be read in conjunction with Section 16-FF(2) therein, which provides that “[t]he procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed”. It is only in the cases where the selection procedure, as prescribed in the Regulations, is followed, that there cannot be a disapproval unless there is a lack of requisite eligibility and qualifications. Thus, the question of deemed appointment does not arise under section 16-FF(4) of the Act. [Paras 24, 25][981-H; 982-A-C]
1.4 If the statutory provisions read with relevant Regulations were to provide for ‘deemed appointment’, there would not have been a further remedy against an order of disapproval by the DIOS. Sub-section (5) of section 16-FF provides the remedy to the College Management in the event the DIOS does not grant an approval. As per this, the Management can within three weeks from the date of receipt of disapproval, make a representation to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. In view of the legal provision as obtained under Section 16- FF of the Act, read with Regulation 18, the submissions of the respondents’ that there is a ‘deemed appointment’ of selection under Regulation 18 is rejected. [Paras 26, 27][982-C-E]
1.5 Approval of DIOS is mandatory and that the Act injuncts the appointment of a Teacher without such approval. The legal regime concerning the appointment of Teachers does not contemplate any concept of deemed appointment if the DIOS does not decide upon the proposal within 15 days. Under these circumstances, the reference to and reliance on the principle that Rules that existed at the time when vacancies arose will govern the appointments is misplaced. [Para 29][982-G-H; 983-A]
1.6 In any event, it is now a settled principle of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of existing Rules, which implies Rules in force as on the date of consideration. Thus, the submission by Respondents, that the vacancies that existed prior to the amendment of Regulation 17 of Chapter II, must be governed by unamended rules is rejected. [Paras 30 and 33][983-B; 985-C]
Smt. Rachna Hills case Special Appeal Defective No.
42 of 2019; Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls’ High School (1998) 2 SCC 461 : [1997]
5 Suppl. SCR 542; Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725 : [2011] 4 SCR 149; Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma Dadhich and Anr. (2019) 4 SCC 316 : [2019] 1 SCR 585; State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.