UP Intermediate Education Act | Vacancies Which Existed Before Amendment Of Regulation 17 Are To Be Governed By Amended Rules : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the vacancies to the teaching posts in Uttar Pradesh which arose prior to amendment of Regulation 17 of the ‘Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921’, are to be governed by amended rules. The amendment to Regulation 17 was notified on 12.03.2018 and it now prescribes a written examination for the selection of Teachers in minority institutions.

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 further observed that is 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.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 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 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 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 VERDICT

Vacancies that existed prior to the amendment of Regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules

The selected candidates had submitted before the High Court that the vacancies to the post of teachers could be filled only as per the Rules and Regulations that operated when the vacancies arose and not as per the Regulations that came to be amended thereafter. The High Court had accepted their submission.

The Bench held that the vacancies that existed prior to the amendment of Regulation 17 are to be governed by amended rules. Accordingly, it was observed that:

“We have already held that approval of DIOS is mandatory and that the Act injuncts the appointment of a Teacher without such approval. We have also held that 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.”

Further, it is 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.

On the remaining issues, the Bench held that selection process under Intermediate Act concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted, there is no place for a deemed appointment. Further, 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.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.

Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v Rachna Hills & Ors.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1882 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment