Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

".............The imperatives of a fair and just process of recruitment in order to select the most deserving and qualified candidate is a facet which has an indelible bond to standards of education in an educational institution. The rights that are claimed by a minority institution, consequently must be read as being subject to the caveat noticed above, namely, the obligation to act in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. A process of recruitment which does not answer even the rudimentary requirements of a fair and just process can neither commend sanction in law nor can it be preserved by the protective umbrella of Article 30 of the Constitution. Regard must also be had to the fact that the Institution was in receipt of State aid. Once that institution stands conferred that benefit, the respondents could legitimately claim the right to regulate the selection process within the narrow confine culled out above. The provisions of Section 16FF cannot be construed as conferring an immunity to the minority institution to claim a right to select and appoint by adopting a process which is neither fair nor transparent. The right to select a teacher must be read as being hedged and subject to the rigours of other parts of the Constitution.

Learned Single Judge, in this backdrop, while dismissing the writ petitions has heavily relied upon the enquiry so made in response to the writ Court direction and also considered the relevant provisions of the Act of 19211 and specially the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act of 1921 as well as Appendix-C contained in Chapter-II of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921.

Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has vehemently contended that the Joint Director of Education had no jurisdiction or authority to pass directions to the District Inspector of Schools to undertake any enquiry. He has also heavily relied upon the provisions of Section 16FF of the Act of 1921 and contended that the power to interfere with the choice made by the Management stands vested only in the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the Inspector as the case may be. It is also submitted that the Joint Director had no power to recommend or command the Management to terminate the services of the petitioners-appellants. But strangely the authority i.e. Joint Director of Education, which had no jurisdiction in the matter held that the appointment is illegal and commanded the DIOS to take necessary action, which resulted into stopping of salary and finally the Committee of Management terminated the services of the petitioners appellants. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has also urged that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge based upon the enquiry made by the authority qua the educational qualifications is also unsustainable as the petitioners-appellants had requisite qualifications. Infact it was no one's case that the petitioners-appellants' appointments were made on non-sanctioned post. The appellant no.1 Mohd. Shoeb Khan was duly qualified for Arts teacher and appellant no.2 Mohd. Saleem Khan was duly qualified for Science teacher. The respondents have transgressed their authority in outreaching the scope of enquiry under Section 16FF of the Act of 1921, which lays provisions vis-a-vis service conditions in minority institutions. As such it is contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Moreover the petitioners-appellants in response to the advertisement applied and they have rendered more than 7 years of their service and in most arbitrary manner their services have been dispensed with. As such it is contended that this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioners-appellants otherwise they would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the special appeals and submitted that due to gross illegalities, which were noticed in the course of enquiry and from which the selection proceedings undisputedly sufferred, the respondent authorities were fully justified in interfering with the entire process and command the respondent management to terminate those illegal appointments. More so the same was done on the dictate/ direction made by the Court and as such at no point of time the respondent authorities had transgressed or violated any provisions of the Act of 1921. They were fully justified in interfering with the entire process and commanded the respondent-management to terminate those illegal appointments. He has also vehemently contended that full fledged mechanism is provided in the Act of 1921 and the minority institutions may be empowered to select appointment and eligible persons in the light of the provisions made under Section 16FF, the State cannot be said to be totally deprived or denuded of authority especially when the burden of salaries of such teachers would ultimately fall on public exchequer. On the basis of record admittedly there were discrepancy in the advertisement, which has been highlighted in the enquiry and more so the petitioners-appellants did not have minimum eligibility to get appointment. Therefore, the entire selection was dehorse the provisions and the petitioners-appellants failed to justify that the selection was made strictly in accordance with law. There is no infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned passed by the educational authorities, which are rightly approved and upheld by learned Single Judge.

It may be noted that the selection and appointment of teachers in a minority institution and the right of the respondents to review or scrutinise an appointment made is governed by the provisions made in Section 16FF. The provision firstly lays down the composition of the Selection Committee. In case selection is for the Head of the institution, it must comprise of an expert selected out of a panel prepared by the Director. In case of appointment of a Teacher, the Selection Committee must also include the head of the Institution as a member. Section 16FF (2) then provides that the Selection Committee shall follow such procedure "as may be prescribed". Regulation 17 falling in Chapter II which admittedly governs selections undertaken by a minority institution, attracts the procedure prescribed by Regulation 10 clauses (e) and (f) to such selections. In this backdrop, learned Single Judge has considered the judgment passed in Ajay Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.2 where the position has been taken that the provisions made in Appendix-C contained in Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act would ipso facto apply to minority institutions also and in view thereof it was incumbent upon the Selection Committee to award quality point marks upon the evaluation of individual candidates. The legal position as enunciated in Ajay Singh (Supra) is as under:-