Summary
Two minority intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh selected assistant teachers and sought the District Inspector of Schools' approval, but before approval was granted Regulation 17 was amended to require a written examination, and the DIOS returned the proposals. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16-FF(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 no appointment can be made without the DIOS's approval, so the selection was not complete and no vested right arose; that neither the Act nor Regulation 18 provides for a deemed appointment if approval is delayed; and that a candidate is entitled only to consideration under the rules in force on the date of consideration, not those prevailing when the vacancy arose.
Issues
- Whether the selection process for teachers in a minority institution concludes, and the candidates acquire a vested right to appointment, once the Committee of Management forwards the names to the District Inspector of Schools, before approval under Section 16-FF(3).
- Whether the Act read with Regulation 18 contemplates a deemed appointment if the DIOS does not approve the proposal within 15 days.
- Whether vacancies that arose before the amendment of Regulation 17 on 12.03.2018 must be filled under the unamended Regulations.
Provisions considered
- Section 16-FF(3), (4) and (5), Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921No person selected shall be appointed unless the proposal is approved by the Inspector; the words 'no person', 'shall be appointed' and 'unless' make approval mandatory, so selection is incomplete without it. Sub-section (4) bars withholding approval of a qualified candidate only where the prescribed selection procedure was followed, and sub-section (5) provides a representation against disapproval, which would be meaningless if appointment were deemed. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 25, 26)
- Regulation 17 (as amended with effect from 12.03.2018) and Regulation 18, Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Chapter IIRegulation 17 now prescribes a written examination for selection of teachers in minority institutions; Regulation 18 fixes the time for the Manager to issue an appointment order after approval, prescribes no period for approval and creates no deemed appointment, and as subordinate legislation could not override Section 16-FF(3). (¶¶ 17, 22, 23, 24, 27)
Held
- Appointment of a teacher in a minority institution is subject to the mandatory approval of the DIOS under Section 16-FF(3); until approval is given the process of appointment is not concluded and the selected candidate has no right, much less a vested right, to be appointed. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- Neither Section 16-FF nor Regulation 18 prescribes a period within which approval must be granted or provides for deemed appointment on delay; Regulation 18 only fixes the time for issuing the appointment order after approval, and a regulation could not in any event create a deemed appointment contrary to the statute. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled under the law in force when they arose; a candidate has only a right to be considered under the rules in force on the date of consideration, so vacancies that predated the amendment of Regulation 17 are governed by the amended Regulations. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Allahabad High Court's judgments dated 16.01.2019 in Special Appeal Defective No. 42 of 2019 and Writ Appeal No. 27341 of 2018, and dated 18.01.2019 in Special Appeal Defective No. 38 of 2019, set aside. No order as to costs.