IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate has a right to be considered in light of existing Rules which implies Rules in force as on date of consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Schools and intermediate educational institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921¹[hereinafter ‘the Act’], Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The procedure for the selection and appointment of Heads of Institutions and Teachers in minority institutions is provided in Section 16-FF of the Act and Regulation 17 of the Regulations²[Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, Chapter II, Regulation 17; hereinafter ‘Regulation 17’.] While the detailed procedure for selection is laid down in Regulation 17, sub-section (3) of Section 16-FF of the Act mandates that no person selected as a Teacher shall be appointed unless the proposal for appointment is approved by the District Inspector of Schools³[U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, section 16-FF(3) read with section 2(bb); hereinafter ‘DIOS’.].

2. In the present case, two minority institutions initiated the process of selection of Teachers and forwarded their proposals to the DIOS for approval. Before the requisite approval was granted, the Government amended Regulation 17, prescribing a new procedure for selection. Consequently, the DIOS returned the proposal for compliance with the new procedure. The institutions challenged the DIOS’ decision requiring the Management to follow the new Rules by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. By the orders impugned before us, the High Court held that, once the Management forwards the names for approval of the DIOS, the selection process concludes and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed. The High Court also referred to and relied on a principle that vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules have to be governed by the Rules that existed at the time such vacancies arose. The State of U.P. is in appeal before us. Supporting the decisions of the High Court, the Respondents also argued before us that the Regulations contemplate a ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not confirm the appointment within 15 days of receiving the proposal. We have answered all the three questions.

4. Allowing State’s appeals, we have held that the selection process concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted. Having examined the statutory regime along with the subordinate legislation, we found that there is no place for a deemed appointment. We have also clarified that the principle relied on by the High Court for applying old rules for past vacancies is neither applicable to the facts of the present cases nor good law in view of recent decisions of this Court.

5. We will now refer to the necessary facts before recording submissions of the parties, followed by reasons and our decision.

6. Facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 1882 and 1883 of 2023: Rakha Balika Inter College, Fatehgarh, Farrukabad, U.P., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent College, is a recognized aided minority institution, imparting education up to the level of intermediate. On 04.10.2017, the College issued an advertisement inviting applications for the selection and appointment to three posts of Assistant Teachers. The Selection Committee constituted by the College processed the applications and, by its proceedings dated 17.01.2018, shortlisted and recommended the names of Respondents nos. 1 to 3 to the College Management.

7. The Management accepted the recommendation and by its letter dated 10.02.2018 sought the approval of the DIOS, Farrukabad, for the appointment of Respondent nos. 1 to 3 as Assistant Teachers. The DIOS, by his letter dated 08.03.2018, informed the Management that the proposal for approval is incomplete and therefore suggested that necessary information with supporting documents may be furnished for the grant of approval.

8. Before the Respondent College could send the necessary information, the Regulations prescribing the process of appointment were amended. The amended provision