THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS versus RACHNA HILLS & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 27-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 969
969
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
RACHNA HILLS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023)
APRIL 27, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Service Law: Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,
1921: ss. 16-E, 16-FF – Appointment of teachers in minority
institutions – Procedure for selection and appointment – Initiation
of the process of selection of teachers – Proposals forwarded to the
District Inspector of Schools-DIOS for approval – However, before
the grant of the requisite approval, Regn 17 was amended, prescribing
a new selection procedure – Thereafter, DIOS returned the proposal
for compliance with the new procedure – Writ petitions challenging
the decision of DIOS – High Court held that once the names are
forwarded for approval of the DIOS, the selection process concludes
and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed;
and that the vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules
have to be governed by the Rules that existed at the time such
vacancies arose – On appeal, held: Approval of DIOS is mandatory
for appointment and that the Act injuncts the appointment of a teacher
without such approval – Legal regime does not contemplate any
concept of deemed appointment if the DIOS does not decide upon
the proposal within 15 days – Reliance on the principle that Rules
that existed at the time when vacancies arose will govern the
appointments is misplaced – 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 facts, 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 vested right of the
candidate to be appointed before the amendment of Regulation –
Unless the approval contemplated u/s. 16-FF(3) is accorded, no
appointment could take place – Thus, the appointment would be
governed by the amended Regulations which is in force at the time of
consideration – High Court erred in holding that the shortlisted
candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed – Order passed
by the High Court is set aside – Regn 17, 18.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (3) of section 16-FF of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act 1921 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. If the expressions ‘no person’, ‘shall be appointed’,
and ‘unless’ employed in sub-section (3) are given their ordinary
meaning, which is the foremost of the linguistic canons of
construction of legislation, there is no hesitation in holding 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. Thus, in view of the clear statutory mandate
under Section 16-FF(3) of the Act, the High Court has committed
an error in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent nos. 1
to 3 have acquired a vested right to be appointed. [Paras 19,
21][979-D-E; 980-E]
1.2 The appointments are to be made under Section 16-E
of the Act. Section 16-F of the Act provides for the constitution
and recommendation of Selection Committees and Section 16-
FF therein specifically relates to minority institutions. Regulation
18(1) provides for the time within which an order of appointment
is to be issued by a Manager to the selected candidate. According
to which, where the recommendation is made by a Selection
Committee constituted under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section
16-F of the Act, an order of appointment is to be issued within 15
days of the receipt of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee. Whereas, in the case of an institution referred to in
Section 16-FF of the Act, i.e., a minority institution, as in the
instant case, it is to be issued within 15 days of the receipt of the
approval of the authority specified therein. Neither Section 16-FF
of the Act nor Regulation 18 provides the period within which
approval is to be accorded. Further, neither of the two provisions
provide for deemed appointment in the event of delay in granting
approval. Therefore, unless the approval contemplated under
Section 16-FF(3) is

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