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 4412
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a teacher’s appointment in a minority institution be considered final without the mandatory approval of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the process for appointing teachers in minority institutions within Uttar Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the stages of the selection process and the rights of candidates in light of amendments to the regulations.

Case Background

The case involves three appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh against decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. These appeals concern the appointment of teachers in minority educational institutions. The core issue revolves around whether the selection process is complete once the institution’s management recommends candidates, or if the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) approval is also mandatory. The High Court had ruled that the selection process concludes once the management forwards the names for approval, and the candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed.

Two minority institutions, Rakha Balika Inter College and M/s Farrukabad City Girls Inter College, initiated the process of selecting teachers. They forwarded their proposals to the DIOS for approval. Before the DIOS granted the necessary approval, the government amended the regulations, introducing a new selection procedure. Consequently, the DIOS returned the proposals, requiring the institutions to comply with the amended rules. The institutions then challenged the DIOS’s decision, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially ruled in favor of the institutions, stating that the selection process was complete once the management forwarded the names for approval. The High Court also stated that the amended regulations would not apply to vacancies that arose before the amendment. The DIOS was directed to reconsider the matter. However, the DIOS maintained that the selection process was not complete without its approval. The High Court then directed the personal presence of the DIOS and subsequently directed compliance with its earlier order. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, leading to the State of Uttar Pradesh filing appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, particularly Section 16-FF, which deals with minority institutions. This section stipulates that no teacher can be appointed unless the proposal is approved by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS).

Section 16-FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, states:

“16-FF. Savings as to minority institutions
(1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of section 16-E, and section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman), nominated by the Committee of Management:
Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee shall —
(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution, be an expert selected by the Committee of Management from a panel of experts prepared by the Director;
(b) in the case of appointment of a teacher be the Head of the Institution concerned.
(2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed, unless —
(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education; and
(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been approved by the Inspector.
(4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval for the selection made under this section where the person selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible.
(5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector, as the case may be, does not approve of a candidate selected under this section, the Committee of Management may, within three weeks from the date of receipt of such disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the case of a teacher.
(6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub-section (5) shall be final.”

Regulation 17 of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, which was amended on 12.03.2018, prescribes a new procedure for the selection of teachers, including a written examination. Regulation 18 specifies the procedure for issuing appointment orders.

Regulation 18 of the Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, states:

“(1) Within fifteen days of the receipt of the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 16-F, and in case of an institution referred to in Section 16- FF, the approval of the authority specified therein, the Manager shall, on authorisation under resolution of the Committee of Management, issue an order of appointment by Registered Post to the candidate in the form given in Appendix ‘B’ requiring the candidate to join duty within ten days of the receipt of such order, failing which the appointment of the candidate will be liable to cancellation.
(2) In case of promotions and ad hoc appointments also a formal order of promotion or appointment in the form as near as possible to the form referred to in Clause (1) shall be issued to the person concerned under the signature of the Manager.
(3) A copy of every order referred to in Clauses (1) and (2) shall be sent to the Inspector and in case of appointment of the head of institution, a copy thereof shall also be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education.”

Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the selection process is not complete until the DIOS grants approval. They contended that no vested right of appointment is created in favor of the candidates until such approval is obtained. The State also argued that the amended regulations should apply as the selection process was not finalized before the amendments came into force.

The Respondents (the institutions and the selected candidates) argued that the selection process should be deemed complete once the Committee of Management proposes the names for approval to the DIOS. They further submitted that the DIOS does not have the authority to withhold approval except when candidates lack minimum qualifications. They also relied on Regulation 18 to argue that if the DIOS does not confirm the appointment within 15 days, a deemed appointment should be considered. Additionally, they argued that the rules existing when the vacancies arose should govern the selection process.

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

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls’ High School [(1998) 2 SCC 461] – Supreme Court of India: The court cited this case to emphasize that appointment is incomplete without the DIOS’s approval.
• Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] – Supreme Court of India: The court relied on this case to affirm that a candidate has the right to be considered in light of existing rules, which implies the rules in force on the date of consideration.
• Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma Dadhich and Anr. [(2019) 4 SCC 316] – Supreme Court of India: The court reiterated the principle that a candidate has no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered as per the rules on the date of consideration.
• State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680] – Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to formulate principles regarding the applicability of rules at the time of vacancy versus the time of consideration.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the selection process for teachers in minority institutions is not complete until the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) grants mandatory approval. The court rejected the argument that a “deemed appointment” exists if the DIOS does not approve within 15 days. The court also clarified that the rules applicable are those in force on the date of consideration, not when the vacancies arose.

The court emphasized that Section 16-FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, clearly states that no appointment can be made without DIOS approval. The court also noted that Regulation 18 does not provide for a deemed appointment in case of delay in granting approval.

The Supreme Court referred to Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls’ High School* [(1998) 2 SCC 461] * to emphasize that the appointment is incomplete without the statutory pre-condition of approval from the DIOS.

The court also relied on Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.* [(2011) 6 SCC 725] * and Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma Dadhich and Anr.* [(2019) 4 SCC 316] * to clarify that a candidate has a right to be considered under the existing rules, which means the rules in force on the date of consideration.

The court further relied on State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors.* [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680] * to emphasize that there is no universal rule that vacancies must be filled as per the rules existing when they arose, and that the rules in force on the date of consideration should apply.

The Court quoted from Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., stating:

“It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rule in force” on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises.”

The Court also quoted from State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors., stating:

“There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.”

The Court further quoted from State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors., stating:

“It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the “rule in force” as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear language of Section 16-FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which mandates the approval of the DIOS for the appointment of teachers in minority institutions. The Court emphasized the importance of statutory compliance and rejected the notion of a “deemed appointment” as it was not explicitly provided in the Act or its regulations. The Court also considered the established principle that a candidate’s right to be considered is based on the rules in force on the date of consideration, not the date when the vacancy arose. The need for a fair and transparent process, as well as the legal precedence, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

• The appointment of teachers in minority institutions in Uttar Pradesh is not final until the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) grants approval.
• There is no concept of “deemed appointment” if the DIOS does not approve the proposal within 15 days.
• The rules applicable for the selection process are those in force on the date of consideration, not when the vacancies arose.
• Minority institutions must comply with the amended regulations for teacher appointments, including the written examination.
• The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 16-FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and its associated regulations.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and directed that the selection process be conducted as per the amended regulations.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the appointment of teachers in minority institutions is not complete until the DIOS grants approval, and the rules applicable are those in force on the date of consideration. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 16-FF of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and its associated regulations, and overrules the High Court’s position that the selection process is complete once the management forwards the names for approval. This also clarifies that the rules applicable are those in force on the date of consideration, not when the vacancies arose.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rachna Hills clarifies the appointment process for teachers in minority institutions in Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized that DIOS approval is mandatory and that the rules in force at the time of consideration are applicable. This decision ensures a uniform and transparent process for teacher appointments in the state.