{"id":291683,"date":"2023-05-09T18:00:03","date_gmt":"2023-05-09T12:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=291683"},"modified":"2023-05-09T17:58:35","modified_gmt":"2023-05-09T12:28:35","slug":"up-intermediate-education-act-amended-regulation-17-applicable-pre-existing-vacancies-awaiting-dios-approval-supreme-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/09\/up-intermediate-education-act-amended-regulation-17-applicable-pre-existing-vacancies-awaiting-dios-approval-supreme-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"UP Intermediate Education Act | Amended Regulation 17 applicable on pre-existing vacancies awaiting DIOS approval: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court<\/span>: In an appeal by the State against the judgment passed by Single Judge Bench supported by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court that selection process in educational institutions is to be governed by the Rules in existence when vacancies arose and not the amended Regulations which came into effect when the appointments were awaiting authoritative approval, the Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*<\/span>, J. allowed the appeal and held that the High Court committed an error in concluding that the respondents have acquired a vested right of appointment.<\/p>\n

The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921<\/a>, related Rules and Regulations govern Schools and intermediate educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section (3) of Section 16-FF<\/a> of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921<\/a> and Regulation 17 lay the procedure for the selection and appointment of Heads of Institutions and Teachers in minority institutions. It mandates that no person selected as a Teacher shall be appointed unless the proposal for appointment is approved by the District Inspector of Schools (‘DIOS').<\/p>\n

Two minority institutions initiated process for selection of Teachers and forwarded their proposals to the DIOS. While the proposal was awaiting DIOS approval, the Government amended Regulation 17 to prescribe a new selection process. The DIOS, thus, returned the previous proposals requiring the Management to follow the new Rules, and the action was challenged through Writs under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Allahabad High Court relied on the principle that vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules must be governed by the existing Rules when such vacancies arose and 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 decision has been challenged by the State in the instant matter.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that “the principle relied on by the High Court for applying old rules for past vacancies is neither applicable to the instant matter, nor a good law in view of recent decisions of this Court.” The Court did not find any place for a ‘deemed appointment' and held that the selection process concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted. The Court considered the following issues to decide the matter:<\/p>\n