Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In Special Appeal No. 528 of 2019, an advertisement was issued on 13.12.2016 inviting applications for three posts of Assistant Teacher (L.T.). While applications were received by the District Education Officer on 21.12.2016, nothing happened thereafter till the 2017 amendment came into force on 04.01.2017.

7. The other Special Appeal Nos. 221 of 2018, 236 of 2018, 298 of 2018, 683 of 2018, 763 of 2018 and 951 of 2018 have all been filed by the Committees of Management. When we asked Mr. Navnish Negi, Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Mr. Rajesh Joshi, and Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of these private aided institution, how they were aggrieved by the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations, all of them submitted that, since there was an acute shortage of Lecturers/Assistant Teachers (L.T.) in their respective institutions, any delay in completing the process of selection, as a result of the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations, would cripple their academic faculty.

15. The submission, urged on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners, by Mr. Subhash Upadhyay and Mr. Tapan Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that an advertisement, inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturer/ Assistant Teacher (L.T.), can only be issued after approval of the District Education Officer; the applications received by the private aided institutions are required to be forwarded to the office of the District Education Officer; the applications are segregated there, and quality marks are awarded only by the department; on the basis of the quality marks secured by them, the applicants are required to be called for interview in the ratio of 1:7 i.e. the seven most meritorious candidates are to be called for interview for each post; in these cases, the entire exercise till this stage was completed even before the Regulations were amended from 04.01.2017; call letters had also been issued by them to the applicants calling upon them to participate in the interview; if the process were now to be undertaken afresh, on the basis of the newly prescribed quality marks, there is a distinct possibility of the appellants-applicants no longer being eligible to be called for interview; since they have a vested right to be considered on their being short listed for interview, and on call letters being issued to them to appear for an interview, their selection process should be completed only in terms of the pre-amended 2009 Regulations, and not in terms of 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations; except to state that the 2017 amendment to the 2009 Regulations should be applied for all appointments made after 04.01.2017, the impugned proceedings dated 29.03.2017 does not assign any reason why the 2017 amendment should be applied even for selections, the process of which had commenced long before the 2017 amendment came into force on 04.01.2017, and which process had almost culminated prior thereto.

It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the 'rule in force' on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V. Rangaiah's case (supra) lays down any particular time frame, within which the selection process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration for promotion took place after the amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any accrued or vested right of the Appellants have been taken away by the amendment.

66. The questions which arises for consideration is when does the "consideration" for appointment, in these cases, actually take place; and the stage when the applicant accrues a vested right to have the process of selection continued in terms of the Rules in force? Except in Special Appeal Nos.528 of 2019, in the other three cases i.e. Special Appeal Nos.983 and 1004 of 2018 and Special Appeal No.27 of 2019, the selection process had crossed the stage of receipt of applications pursuant to the advertisement. In terms of Regulation 10(a), the applications, received pursuant to the advertisement, were numbered and entered in the Register in the office of the District Education Officer; in terms of Regulation 10(d) quality point marks, obtained by the applicants, had also been entered under the prescribed heads; the applicants were allotted quality point marks, as per the procedure prescribed in annexure (d), by the office of the District Education Officer; the award of quality point marks had also been examined by the District Education Officer, and had been communicated to the concerned private aided institutions along with the application forms; seven candidates were short-listed for interview for each post which was sought to be filled up by direct recruitment in terms of Regulation 10(d); and even the date and place of interview had been finalized. It is only because the subject experts were not available, were interviews not held and the selection process not completed prior to the 2017 amendment coming into force on 04.01.2017.