A.A CALTON versus THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 25-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5~8 
A.A. CAL1'0N 
v. 
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER 
March 25, 1983 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921, s. 16-F (4), as amended by U.P, 
Act of 1975-Scope of-Amendment not applicable to pending proceedings. 
lnterpretation-Reti'ospective operation of statute. 
Under s. 16 F(4) of the U.P. Interm~diate Education Act, 1921 the 
Director of Education had the power to appoint the Principal of a recognised 
institution from amongst the qualified perspns who had applied for that post, 
if the recommendation made under sub-s. (2) by the Selection Committee 
constituted under s. 16-E had twice been disapproved by the Regional Deputy 
Director and the representation of the management of the institution, ·if any, 
under sub-S.(3) against that disapproval had been rejected. This power of 
the Director in relation to minority institutions was taken away by the amend-
ing Act 26 of 1975 with effect from August 18, 1975. 
Respondent No. 2 was appointed Principal of a minority institution by 
the Director of Education on March 8, 1977 in exercise of his power under s. 
16-F(4) of the Act. The process of selection for the post in question had been 
commenced in 1973 and ihe recommendation of the Selection Committee had 
been rejected twice by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The 
appellant challenged the appointment on the ground that (i) on the date of 
appointment the Director had no power to appoint a Principal of a minority 
institution as it had been taken away by the amending Act ; and (ii) that in any 
event the Director could not have appointed respondent No. 2 as his selection 
had been disapproved earlier by the Deputy Direc]or. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petition. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD :· No retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provi-
sion so as to impair or take away an existin11 right, unless the statute either 
expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retros-
pective effect. The amending Act had no retrospective effect. 
It did not 
provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to the pending 
proceedings under s. 16-F, nor did it contain any words which by necessary 
intendment would affect such pending proceedings. The process of selection 
under s. 16-F commencing from the stage of calling for applicationsf or a post 
• 
.. 
6_ ... 
·-. 
j 
/!i..A. C/!i.LTON v. DIRECTO!l., EDUCATION (Venkataramiah, J.) 
599. 
upto the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection is 
an integrated one. At every stage In that process certain rights an.· created 
A 
in favour of one or the ot1'er candidates. [603 B, 602 G-H, 603 Al 
In the instant case, the proceedings for the selection had commenced in 
the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommenda-
tions made by the Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the· 
jurisdiction to make an appointment from a1nongst the qualified candidates, 
B 
who had applied for the vacancy in question. Although the Director exercised 
that power subsequent to August 18, 1975 on which date the amendment came 
into force, it cannot be said th3:t the selection made by him was illegal. [603 B-D] 
'Jhe Act does not state that a person who had been recommended by a · 
Selection Committee onCt' and whose selection-- had been disapproved by the 
Deputy Director should not be consider~d for the post in qµestion. by the 
C 
Director when he exercised his power under s. 16-F(4). The fact that the 
Deputy Director had disapproved the 
recomm~ndation of the Selection 
Committee recommending respondent No. 2 for the post in question once 
before cannot be construed as amounting to a disqualification. [603 F~HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2264 of 1979. 
D 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order 
- tbe 30th March, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil 
Writ Petition No. 417 of 19.77). 
R.K. Jain for the Appellant. 
Bishamber Lal Khanna and S.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judginent of the Court was delivered by 
dated 
Misc. 
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant who was unsuccessful before 
E 
F 
the High Court of Allahabad in a writ petition filed by him under 
Article 226 of the Constitution has filed this appeal by special leave 
against the judgment of the High Court. In the writ petition the 
appellant had 
questioned the validity of the appointment ·of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.