UP Intermediate Education Act | Appointment Process Of Teachers Not Concluded Without Approval By DIOS : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the process of appointment of Teachers under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is not concluded without obtaining the mandatory approval of District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”). There is no vested right of the candidate to be appointed merely because selection process has been completed. Section 16-FF(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 mandates the approval by the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”) for appointment. The Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while adjudicating an appeal filed in The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v Rachna Hills & Ors., has observed that Section 16-FF(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 mandates the approval by the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”) for appointment as the Head of Institution or Teacher. BACKGROUND FACTSIn Uttar Pradesh, the Schools and intermediate educational institutions are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (“Intermediate Act”) and Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (“Regulations”). Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Act and Regulation 17 of the Regulations provide the procedure for the selection and appointment of Heads of Institutions and Teachers in minority institutions. Further, Section 16-FF(3) of the Intermediate Act mandates that no person selected as a Teacher shall be appointed unless the proposal for appointment is approved by the District Inspector of Schools (“DIOS”). Two aided minority institution initiated the process of selection of Assistant Teachers and forwarded their proposals to the DIOS for approval. Before the requisite approval was granted, the Government amended Regulation 17, prescribing a new procedure for selection w.e.f. 12.03.2018. The amended Regulation 17 now prescribes a written examination for the selection of Teachers in minority institutions. Consequently, the DIOS returned the proposal of minority institutions for compliance with the new procedure. The Institutions filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging the DIOS’ decision requiring the Management to follow the new Rules. The Single Judge of High Court set aside the decision and directed the DIOS to reconsider the decision, on the ground that the amended Regulations would not apply as the selection process had attained finality.In compliance of the High Court order, the DIOS passed an order stating that the selection process did not culminate in the grant of approval under Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Act and as such the selection is not final. The DIOS observed that before the appointment of Teachers could be approved, the Regulations stood amended, necessitating compliance with the new procedure for selection. The selected candidates filed another writ petition before the High Court challenging the decision of DIOS. The High Court held that once the Management forwards the names of selected candidates to the DIOS for approval, the selection process concludes and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed. The High Court relied on a principle that the selection process with respect to vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Regulations would be governed by the unamended Regulations. The State of U.P. filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. SUPREME COURT VERDICTNo vested right of the candidate to be appointed merely because selection process has been completed, approval of DIOS mandatoryThe Bench observed that Section 16-FF(3) of the Intermediate Act 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. It was opined that the expressions ‘no person’, ‘shall be appointed’, and ‘unless’ employed in Section 16FF (3) in their ordinary meaning would mean 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” the Bench ruled.Reliance was placed on the judgment in Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls' High School, (1998) 2 SCC 461, wherein the Supreme Court held that in absence of approval from DIOS, which is a statutory pre-condition of appointment, the appointment would be unsustainable and incomplete.The Bench held that in view of Section 16-FF(3) of the Intermediate Act, the candidates do not acquire any vested right to be appointed merely because selection process has been completed. On the remaining issues, the Bench held that the selection process concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted, there is no place for a deemed appointment. Further, the vacancies to the teaching posts in Uttar Pradesh which arose prior to amendment of...

UP Intermediate Education Act | Appointment Process Of Teachers Not Concluded Without Approval By DIOS : Supreme Court

Pallavi Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

UP Intermediate Education Act | Appointment Process Of Teachers Not Concluded Without Approval By DIOS : Supreme Court

Pallavi Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers