-Report by Sejal Jethva
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rachna Hills and Others this instance, Section 16-FF of the Act and Regulation 17 of the Regulations outlines the process for choosing and appointing heads of institutions and teachers at minority institutions. Although the specific selection process is outlined in Regulation 17, Section 16-FF, subsection (3) of the Act requires that the District Inspector of Schools provide his or her approval before appointing a teacher.
FACTS
Two minority institutions took the lead in the teacher selection process and submitted their requests for DIOS clearance. The Government changed Regulation 17 to include a new selection process before the required permission was given. In order to ensure that the proposal complied with the new method, the DIOS returned it. By submitting writ petitions in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, the institutions contested the DIOS’s decision forcing the Management to abide by the new Rules.
According to the decisions challenged before us, the High Court determined that the selection process was complete and the suggested candidates had a vested right to be appointed after Management sent the names to the DIOS for approval. The High Court also made reference to and relied on the rule that vacancies that occur before rules are amended must be regulated by the rules in effect at the time of the occurrence of the vacancy. We are hearing an appeal from the State of U.P.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
We have maintained that the selection process doesn’t end until the DIOS has given its required clearance. A considered appointment has no place, according to our analysis of the legislative framework and the supporting laws. Additionally, we have made it clear that in light of recent decisions by this Court, the concept used by the High Court in order to apply outdated standards to previous vacancies is neither appropriate to the circumstances of the current cases nor sound legal precedent.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
The Respondent-candidates appealed the DIOS’s judgment in question by submitting a writ petition to Allahabad’s High Court of Judicature4. The judgment was overturned and the DIOS was instructed to rethink it by the learned Single Judge in an order dated 07.05.2018 on the grounds that the modified Regulations would not apply because the selection procedure had reached its conclusion.
JUDGMENT
1. In order to evaluate the Respondents’ claims that individuals whose names are submitted to the Management for approval by the DIOS acquire a vested right to be appointed as Teachers, it is important to look at Section 16-FF.
2. Respondents claim that in accordance with Regulation 1815, suggested candidates should be presumed to have been appointed if the DIOS fails to approve them within 15 days following the Management’s proposal.
3. The Division Bench and the High Court’s Single Judge accepted the selected candidates’ argument that the 19 Rules and Regulations in effect at the time the vacancies arose and not the Regulations that would later be amended could only be used to fill the vacancies for the post of a teacher.
4. In light of the law’s unambiguous formulation, we have no qualms about rejecting the learned counsels for the respondents’ argument that the vacancies that existed before the alteration to Regulation 17 of Chapter II must be regulated by unaltered norms.
5. Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023, Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2023, and Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2023 are all accepted for the reasons mentioned above. As a result, the decisions rendered by the High Court of Judicature in Allahabad on January 16, 2019, January 16, 2019, and January 18, 2019, in the cases of Special Appeal Defective No. 42 of 2019 and Writ Appeal No. 27341 of 2018 and Special Appeal Defective No. 38 of 2019, respectively, are annulled.
6. No cost-related order.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LAs0Y3