Judgment

E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- The appellant who was unsuccessful before 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 Mr. A. P. Joseph, respondent No. 2 herein as the Principal of the Ranikhet Intermediate College, Ranikhet, which was a minority institution having the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution in preference to him. The proceedings for the selection of a qualified person to the post in question commenced in the year 1973. The Selection Committee constituted under Section 16-E of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) recommended three persons viz., Shri Bindeshwari Prasad, Shri S. C. Khyali and the appellant. The appellant was given the third rank in that recommendation. The Regional Deputy Director of Education did not approve of the said selection. The matter was again remitted to the Selection Committee. On the second occasion, the Selection Committee recommended the names of the appellant and respondent No. 2 assigning respondent No. 2 a higher rank. That selection also was disapproved by the Deputy Director. The Selection Committee thereafter made a third recommendation. The appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court questioning the validity of the third selection made by the Selection Committee. The High Court in its judgment dated August 19, 1975 (reported in 1976 Lab IC 183) (All.) allowed his writ petition quashed the selection made by the Selection Committee on the third occasion as being without jurisdiction and having regard to the fact that the post in question was that of the Principal directed the Director of Education to make an appointment in accordance with Section 16 (F) (4) of the Act. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, after considering the cases of the qualified candidates who had applied for the vacancy in question the Director appointed respondent. No. 2 to the post by his order dated March 8, 1977. The appellant questioned this appointment by the writ petition out of which this appeal arises before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition. This appeal by special appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court.

2. Before the High Court the appellant raised two contentions :

1. The appointment made by the Director was opposed to the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood on the date of the appointment since on that day by reason of the amendment made to the Act by U. P. Act 26 of 1975 which had come into force on August 18, 1975, the power of the Director to make an appointment had been taken away in relation to minority institutions.

2. In any event the Director could not have appointed respondent No. 2 for the post since his selection had been disapproved earlier by the Deputy Director.

3. Both these contentions were negatived by the High Court. They are again urged before us.

4. Section 16-F of the Act, as it stood prior to August 18, 1975 read thus :

"16-F. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless he -

(a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has been exempted under sub-section (1) of Section 16-E;

(b) has been recommended by selection committee constituted under sub-secs. (2) or (3), as the case may be, of the said section and approved, in the case of principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director, Education and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector :

Provided that if the Inspector is satisfied that for any institution, no candidate, who possesses all the prescribed qualifications, is available for appointment, he may permit the institution to employ as a temporary measure any suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. Such period may be extend