STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RACHNA HILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Schools and intermediate educational institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter 'the Act'), Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The procedure for the selection and appointment of Heads of Institutions and Teachers in minority institutions is provided in Sec. 16-FF of the Act and Regulation 17 of the Regulations (Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, Chapter II, Regulation 17; hereinafter 'Regulation 17'). While the detailed procedure for selection is laid down in Regulation 17, sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 16-FF of the 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 (U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, sec. 16-FF(3) read with sec. 2(bb); hereinafter 'DIOS').

(2.) In the present case, two minority institutions initiated the process of selection of 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. Consequently, the DIOS returned the proposal for compliance with the new procedure. The institutions challenged the DIOS' decision requiring the Management to follow the new Rules by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) By the orders impugned before us, the High Court held that, once the Management forwards the names for approval of the DIOS, the selection process concludes and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed. The High Court also referred to and relied on a principle that vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules have to be governed by the Rules that existed at the time such vacancies arose. The State of U.P. is in appeal before us. Supporting the decisions of the High Court, the Respondents also argued before us that the Regulations contemplate a 'deemed appointment' if the DIOS does not confirm the appointment within 15 days of receiving the proposal. We have answered all the three questions.