Point of Law: A perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act of 1921 indicates that the Inspector is prohibited from withholding approval of selection made under Section 16-FF where the persons selected possess the minimum qualification prescribed and are otherwise eligible.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Since both the aforesaid appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.4972 (S/S) of 2009 (Mueez Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and another), they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order, which is being passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 185 of 2020, treating it as the leading case.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Islamia Inter College, Lakhimpur Kheri is a minority educational institution. On 14.01.2009, the Appellant - Committee Of Management Islamia Inter College, Lakhimpur Kheri, had issued an advertisement inviting applications for making appointments on the post of Assistant Teacher in four subjects i.e. Mathematics, General, Hindi and Art. The respondent no.2 -Mueez Ahmad was a graduate in History and Political Science and the respondent no.3 - Mohd. Suhaib Hasan is a graduate with Mathematics as a subject and they were eligible for applying for the posts advertised. Both of them applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement. Several candidates participated in the interview held on 28.07.2009 including the respondents no. 2 and 3 and afterwards the Appellant published a merit list of the candidates, in which the respondent no. 2 was shown at serial no. 1 amongst the candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (General) and the respondent no. 3 was shown at serial no. 1 amongst the candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher (Maths).

3. The list of selected candidates was sent to the District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as "D.I.O.S.") for his approval under Section 16-FF of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1921").

4. On 07.08.2009, the D.I.O.S. wrote a letter to the Appellant returning the files relating to selection proceedings directing the Appellant to conduct the interviews afresh in supervision of an Observer appointed by the D.I.O.S.

5. The respondents no. 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No.4972 (S/S) of 2009 challenging the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2009 passed by the D.I.O.S. mainly on the ground that there is no provision in the Act of 1921 or any other law to hold the selection/interview under supervision of any Observer and that the D.I.O.S. had no power to pass an order for holding interviews afresh in supervision of an Observer appointed by him.

6. The D.I.O.S., Lakhimpur Kheri filed a counter affidavit in reply to the Writ Petition, stating that the Institution in question, namely, Islamia Inter College, Lakhimpur Kheri is a minority institution and is recognized and aided up to the level of High School and recognized and unaided at the Intermediate level. Salary of the teaching staff of the institution up to the level of High School is paid from the State exchequer. Four posts of Assistant Teachers in LT grade were lying vacant in the institution. The Manager of the institution sought permission to issue an advertisement to fill up the vacancies and the D.I.O.S. granted the permission vide order dated 12.01.2009. Thereafter the Committee of Management held interviews on 28.07.2009, selected three candidates and sent the requisite papers to the D.I.O.S. for approval of their appointment vide letter dated 29.07.2009. Thereafter, various complaints were received in the office of the D.I.O.S. alleging various irregularities and illegalities in the selection process and certain newspapers published reports to this effect. Keeping in view the seriousness of the complaints, the file was returned to the institution for holding interviews afresh in supervision of an Observer appointed by the D.I.O.S.

7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the private respondents no.4 and 5 stating that the selection process adopted by the Committee of Management was not in accordance with the provisions of the regulations framed under the Act of 1921 and in the event of any illegality committed