Supreme Court clarifies appointment process for teachers in minority institutions: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rachna Hills (27 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 379
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a selection process for teachers in minority institutions be considered complete without the mandatory approval of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the stages involved in the appointment process. This judgment is crucial for understanding the rights of candidates and the obligations of educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh. The bench comprised of Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The case involves multiple appeals from the State of Uttar Pradesh against decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. These cases concern the appointment of teachers in minority educational institutions. The core issue revolves around whether the selection process concludes when the institution’s management recommends candidates, or only after the DIOS approves the appointment.

In Civil Appeal Nos. 1882 and 1883 of 2023, Rakha Balika Inter College, a minority institution, advertised three Assistant Teacher posts on 04.10.2017. The Selection Committee recommended candidates by 17.01.2018, and the Management sought DIOS approval on 10.02.2018. The DIOS requested additional information on 08.03.2018. Before the college could respond, the regulations were amended on 12.03.2018, leading the DIOS to ask the college to follow the new procedure on 14.03.2018.

Similarly, in Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2023, M/s Farrukabad City Girls Inter College, another minority institution, advertised for an Assistant Teacher post on 04.12.2017. The DIOS, on 19.03.2018, directed the college to follow the amended regulations, which came into force on 12.03.2018.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially ruled in favor of the candidates, stating that the selection process concluded when the Management forwarded the names for approval. The Single Judge directed the DIOS to reconsider the matter, stating that the amended regulations would not apply because the selection process had attained finality. However, the DIOS stated that the selection process did not culminate in the grant of approval. The Single Judge again directed the DIOS to comply with the original direction.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State’s appeals, stating that vacancies arising before the amendment of the Regulations would be governed by the unamended Regulations. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appointment of teachers in minority institutions in Uttar Pradesh is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, specifically Section 16-FF, and the Regulations made thereunder, particularly Regulation 17.

Section 16-FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, outlines the procedure for appointing teachers in minority institutions. Sub-section (3) of Section 16-FF states that “No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless…in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.” This clearly indicates that the appointment is not complete until the DIOS grants approval.

Regulation 17 of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, provides the detailed procedure for the selection of teachers. The amended version of this regulation introduced a written examination as part of the selection process.

Regulation 18 of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, specifies the time frame for issuing appointment orders. It states that the Manager shall issue an order of appointment within fifteen days of the receipt of the approval of the authority specified.

Arguments

Submissions by the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• The State argued that the selection process was not complete before the amendment of the Regulations on 12.03.2018, as the DIOS approval was still pending.
• They contended that no vested right of appointment was created in favor of the candidates without the DIOS approval.
• The State submitted that the selection process must be governed by the amended Regulations, as the legality of the amended Regulations was not challenged.
• The orders of the DIOS were in compliance with the statute and the Regulations.

Submissions by the Respondent Candidates:

• The candidates argued that the selection process should be deemed complete when the Management proposed the names for approval to the DIOS.
• They submitted that the DIOS could not withhold approval except when the candidates lacked minimum qualifications, relying on sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
• They contended that Regulation 18 mandates a ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not confirm the appointment within 15 days of receiving the proposal.
• They relied on previous court decisions to support their argument that the rules existing when the vacancy arose should govern the selection process.

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the High Court erred in assuming that the selection process was complete before the amendment of the Regulations. The State emphasized that the DIOS’s approval was mandatory, and without it, no vested right to appointment could be created. The State also pointed out that the amended Regulations were not challenged by the Respondents, making the DIOS’s orders fully compliant with the law.

The Respondent candidates argued that the selection process concludes when the Management proposes names for approval. They further argued that the DIOS’s power to withhold approval is limited to cases where candidates lack minimum qualifications. The candidates also claimed a ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not act within 15 days, citing Regulation 18. They also contended that the rules in force when the vacancies arose should apply, not the amended rules.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the selection process concluded, and the candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed before the amendment of the Regulations?
2. Whether the Act, read with the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, contemplates ‘deemed appointment’ if the approval of the DIOS is not given within a period of 15 days?
3. Whether the posts of teachers could be filled as per the Rules and Regulations that existed when the vacancies arose and not as per the amended Regulations?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

On the requirement of DIOS approval:

• Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls’ High School [(1998) 2 SCC 461] – The Supreme Court of India held that appointment is incomplete without the approval of the DIOS.

On the concept of ‘deemed appointment’:

• Section 16-FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, mandates DIOS approval for appointment.
• Regulation 18 of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, does not provide for deemed appointment.

On the applicability of rules:

• Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] – The Supreme Court of India held that a candidate has a right to be considered under the rules in force on the date of consideration.
• Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma Dadhich and Anr. [(2019) 4 SCC 316] – The Supreme Court of India reiterated that a candidate has a right to be considered under the rules existing on the date when the case for promotion was taken up.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680] – The Supreme Court of India clarified that vacancies need not be filled based on the law existing when they arose.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the State of Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the selection process for teachers concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted.

The Court clarified that there is no concept of ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not approve the proposal within 15 days. The Court also stated that the rules in force on the date of consideration, not when the vacancies arose, should govern the selection process.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls’ High School [(1998) 2 SCC 461]* to emphasize that DIOS approval is a precondition for appointment.
• The Court interpreted Section 16-FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, to highlight the mandatory nature of DIOS approval.
• The Court interpreted Regulation 18 of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, to clarify that it does not provide for deemed appointment.
• The Court followed Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 725]* to establish that rules in force on the date of consideration apply.
• The Court followed Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma Dadhich and Anr. [(2019) 4 SCC 316]* to reiterate that a candidate has a right to be considered under the rules existing on the date when the case for promotion was taken up.
• The Court followed State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680]* to clarify that vacancies need not be filled based on the law existing when they arose.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear statutory language of Section 16-FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which mandates DIOS approval for appointments. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind this provision. The Court also relied on its previous judgments to clarify that the selection process is not complete until all statutory requirements are met.

The Court rejected the argument of “deemed appointment” by noting that neither the Act nor the Regulations provide for such a concept. The Court also clarified that the rules in force on the date of consideration apply, not the rules when the vacancies arose. This was based on the settled legal principle that a candidate has a right to be considered under the existing rules.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the following key points:

• The mandatory nature of DIOS approval as per Section 16-FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
• The absence of any provision for ‘deemed appointment’ in the Act or Regulations.
• The settled legal principle that a candidate has a right to be considered under the rules in force on the date of consideration.
• The need to adhere to the statutory framework governing the appointment process.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The selection process for teachers in minority institutions is not complete until the DIOS grants mandatory approval.
• There is no concept of ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not approve the proposal within 15 days.
• The rules in force on the date of consideration, not when the vacancies arose, should govern the selection process.
• Educational institutions must follow the amended regulations for teacher appointments.
• Candidates do not have a vested right to appointment until the DIOS approval is granted.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, allowing the appeals of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court directed that the appointment process must follow the amended regulations.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the selection process for teachers in minority institutions concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS, and that the rules in force on the date of consideration apply, not the rules when the vacancies arose.

This judgment clarifies the position of law regarding the appointment of teachers in minority institutions in Uttar Pradesh. It settles the ambiguity regarding the completion of the selection process and the applicability of amended regulations. The Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the rules in force on the date of consideration apply, thereby moving away from the earlier position that the rules existing when the vacancy arose should apply.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Rachna Hills & Ors. clarifies that the appointment of teachers in minority institutions is subject to the mandatory approval of the DIOS. The Court rejected the concept of ‘deemed appointment’ and affirmed that the rules in force on the date of consideration apply. This decision provides clarity on the appointment process and ensures adherence to statutory requirements.