Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that after permission was obtained from the District Inspector of Schools to make selections on three posts, namely, two Lecturers in the subject of Biology and Chemistry and one assistant teacher in L.T. Grade, the vacancies were advertised in two hindi newspapers, Tarun Mitra and Kashi Varta. Thereafter a selection committee was constituted, which has selected the candidates for a minority intermediate college. The District Inspector of Schools can refuse to accord approval to such appointments only on the limited ground that the persons selected are not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifications. Since in the facts of the present case, there is no such allegations qua the petitioners being not qualified, their appointment had to be approved. The education authorities and for that purpose, the Commissioner or the District Magistrate cannot interfere in the working of the petitioners as Lecturers and Assistant Teacher. For the proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 16FF (4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Mukesh Singh Chauhan & others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2006 (64) ALR 33, Karunesh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2005 (3) UPLBEC 2361, Committee of Management Shri Kund Kund Jain Inter College vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2006 (3) ESC 1588 (All.). It is then contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Ahmad vs. Manager Emjay High School & others reported in 1998 (6) SCC 674 has held that the Management has full freedom to appoint any person from the staff of the same institution or from outside, who is possessed of the prescribed qualification under the Statutes/Rules or Regulations and such right of the Management cannot be interfered with.

Learned counsel for the respondents in reply contends that provisions of Section 16E (1) and (2) and Section 16FF of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 apply in the matter of appointment of teachers and Principal of recognised minority intermediate colleges. For selection and appointment, detail procedure under Regulation 17 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has been laid down. The said provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 have not been challenged by the petitioner. Even otherwise, he submits that this provisions have stood the test time for decades together. They are only regulatory in nature, which do not infringe any constitutional right of the Committee of Management. Right to manage the institution by minority community does not include a right to mismanage the institution and therefore, the State-Government can lay down certain guidelines/regulations for regulating the mode and manner of selections, so that the best available candidate is selected in the interest of education.

Reference has been made to the judgement in the case of Committee of Management, Smt. Sughrabegum Girls Inter College, Firozabad & Another vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2008 (1) ESC 193 (All), wherein after considering in detail, the provisions of Section 16FF (4) and Regulations 17 to 19 of Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as well as the law applicable in the matter of appointment of teachers in minority institution, it has been held that the aforesaid statutory provisions had to be followed in the matter of appointment of teachers in minority intermediate colleges. He has also placed reliance upon the constitution Bench Judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of T. M.A. Pai Foundation & others vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 as also upon the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in the case Krishna Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2005 (2) ESC 1542, wherein it has been held that any appointment made in any institution receiving aid from the State Government without advertisement de hors the statutory rules, would be nullity.

In view of Regulation 19 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 , petitioners are not entitled to salary from State exchequer.

The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mukesh Singh Chauhan, Karunesh Kumar Singh and Committee of Management Shri Kund Kund Jain Inter College (Supra) deal with the powers of the District Inspector of Schools in the matter of disapproval of the appointment made in light of Section 16FF (4) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The legal principles so laid down in the aforesaid judgements cannot be disputed. However, applicability of the deeming provision under Section 16FF (4) would arise only when the other statutory provisions have been followed, namely, the vacancy has been advertised as required under law, selections have been held by a duly constituted selection committee, as per the statutory provisions etc. Section 16FF (4) cannot be read independent of the other provisions. Section 16E and Section 16FF and the Regulations 17 to 19 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 form part of the same scheme for appointment of teachers in minority institution and have to be read together. Since in the facts of the present case, this Court has come to the conclusion that the procedure adopted in the matter of appointment itself was de hors the statutory Rules, the reliance upon the limited scope of Section 16FF does not arise nor can this Court approve such appointment only because the selected candidate is possessed of the prescribed qualifications.