The Supreme Court overturned an Allahabad High Court decision and ruled that the appointment of teachers should be governed by the rules in place before the amendment of Regulation 17 Chapter II of the U.P Intermediate Education Act of 1921, as long as the appointment process had already begun.
The Court found that approval from the DIOS was mandatory for teacher appointments and that a candidate had no inherent right to be appointed without it.
Brief Facts:
Two minority institutions had started the process of selecting teachers and submitted their proposals to the DIOS (U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, section 16-FF(3) read with section 2(bb); hereinafter referred to as “DIOS”)for approval. However, before the DIOS could approve, the government amended Regulation 17 Chapter II and introduced a new selection procedure. As a result, the DIOS returned the proposal to the institutions, asking them to comply with the new procedure.
Brief Background:
The institutions challenged this decision of DIOS by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favour of the institutions, stating that once the management forwards the names for approval to the DIOS, the selection process concludes, and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed. The High Court also relied on the principle that vacancies that arose before the amendment of Rules have to be governed by the Rules that existed when such vacancies arose. The State of U.P. appealed the decision of the High Court. At the same time, the Respondents argued that the Regulations contemplate a 'deemed appointment' if the DIOS does not confirm the appointment within 15 days of receiving the proposal.
Contentions of the State of UP (Appellants):
It was argued that both the Single Judge and Division Bench had mistakenly assumed that the selection process was complete before the amendment came into effect. They claimed that since the DIOS had not approved, no vested right of appointment had been created in favour of the Respondents. Therefore, they asserted that the new amended Regulations should govern the selection process.
It was further argued that since the Respondents did not challenge the legality of the amended Regulations, the orders of the DIOS were fully compliant with the statute and the Regulations.
Contentions of the Institutions (Respondents):
The respondents argued that the selection process should be considered complete as soon as the Committee of Management proposed the names for approval to the DIOS. They claimed that the DIOS has no authority to withhold consent except in cases where the selected candidates do not meet minimum qualifications, as per subsection (4) of Section 16-FF of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act of 1921. The Respondents cited Regulation 18, which requires authorities to approve within 15 days of receiving the recommendation of the Selection Committee. They argued that failing to do so would result in a deemed appointment. They also relied on previous Court decisions to argue that the Rules in place at the time of the vacancy govern the selection process and that amendments to the Regulations cannot adversely affect the appointment of the current Respondents.
Observations of the Court:
The following issues were to be adjudicated by the Court in the present case:
- Whether the selection process end and did the candidates gain a right to be appointed before the Regulations were amended?
- Whether the U.P. Intermediate Education Act of 1921 and the Rules & Regulations made under it allow for a "deemed appointment" if the DIOS does not approve within 15 days?
- Whether teacher vacancies be filled according to the Rules and Regulations in place when the vacancies arose rather than the amended Regulations?
Upon examining section 16-FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it was found that Section 16F(3) clearly states that no individual can be appointed as a teacher until the DIOS approves their proposal. Thus, the approval of the DIOS is mandatory for an appointment. Therefore, a candidate has no inherent or vested right to be appointed without the DIOS's approval. Therefore, the High Court's conclusion that the Respondents had a vested right to be appointed as teachers was incorrect. Accordingly, Supreme Court ruled issue 1 in favour of the Appellants.
During the analysis of Regulation 18, which permitted automatic appointment if the DIOS did not approve the proposal within 15 days, the Court clarified that the regulation only provided a timeframe for issuing appointment orders and did not specify a timeframe for approval. Therefore, the Court concluded that no appointment could only be made with the approval of the DIOS. The Court also held that Regulation 18 could not provide for a "deemed appointment" because it would conflict with the mandatory approval requirement of Section 16-FF(3) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act of 1921. Additionally, the Court noted that the remedy for disapproval is provided under Section 16-FF(5), which allows the College Management to make a representation to the Regional Deputy Director of Education within three weeks. Consequently, the Apex Court ruled in favour of the Appellant on issue 2.
Concerning issue 3, the Top Court found that the appointment of teachers did not include the concept of "deemed appointment" if the DIOS did not decide within 15 days. Consequently, the reference to the rules in place when the vacancies arose, was irrelevant. However, the Court affirmed that a candidate has the right to be considered based on the existing regulations at the time of consideration. The Court rejected the argument that unamended rules must govern vacancies that existed before the amendment of Regulation 17 of Chapter II. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Respondents on issue 3.
Verdict of the Court:
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, overturned the decision of the High Court, stating that the appointment of teachers must be governed by the rules that were in place before the amendment of Regulation 17. The Court clarified that this applied to cases where the appointment process had already commenced before Regulation 17 Chapter II came into effect.
Case Title: The State of Uttar Pradesh v Rachna Hills, Anjali and others
Coram: Hon’ble CJI Dr DY Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice PS Narasimha
Case No: Civil Appeal no. 1882, 1883, 1884 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 392 SC
Advocates for Appellants: Advs. ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, VK Shukla and Harish Pandey
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Shankey Agrawal, Vikash Singh, Jaikriti S Jadeja and Shreyans Raniwala
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :