Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sri V.K. Singh learned Senior Counsel has firstly submitted that the Joint Director of Education clearly had no jurisdiction or authority to pass directions to the District Inspector of Schools to undertake any enquiry. Referring to the provisions made in Section 16FF of the Intermediate Education Act, 19211, it was 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 was consequently submitted that the Joint Director had no power to recommend or command the Management to terminate the services of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the respondents could not have interfered with the selection made only if they found that the persons selected did not possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed or were otherwise ineligible. This submission is addressed in light of the provisions made in Section 16FF(4). Turning then to the issue of the record as maintained by the Selection Committee, it was submitted that there was no legal requirement obliging the Selection Committee to award quality point marks under different heads or fields. It was also submitted that it was not open for the respondents to take cognizance of the complaints many years after approval had been accorded to the appointment of the petitioners by the District Inspector of Schools.

Sri Tandon learned Standing Counsel has on the other hand submitted that bearing in mind the gross illegalities which were noticed in the course of enquiry and from which the selection proceedings undisputedly suffered, the respondents were fully justified in interfering with the entire process and command the respondent Management to terminate those illegal appointments. It was submitted that while a minority institution may be empowered to select appropriate and eligible persons in 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. Sri Tandon learned Standing Counsel submitted that despite the nature of disclosures which are carried in the order of Joint Director, the petitioners have failed to establish that the selection process was in fact carried forth in accordance with law or for that matter was imbued with at least the minimal attributes of fairness as the Constitution otherwise commands.

"In the present case, it has been sought to be contended that once approval had been accorded by the District Inspector of Schools in exercise of authority vested under Section 16FF of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, then salary has to be ensured ipso facto automatically. Such question is being looked into and answered accordingly.

Section 16FF and the provisions as contained in Chapter II Regulation 17 quoted above would go to show that approval is required before making appointment. After approval has been accorded, the same is followed by exercise to be undertaken by the committee of management of the institution in terms of Chapter II Regulation 18, wherein the committee of management has been obliged under the resolution to issue an order of appointment by registered post to the candidate in the form given in Appendix- 'B', requiring the candidate to join the duty within ten days of receipt of such order, failing which appointment of candidate would be liable to cancellation. It is only when appointment letter is issued after approval has been accorded in terms of Chapter II Regulation 18 of the Regulations framed under .P. Act No. 2 of 1921, and incumbent accepts the appointment and joins then situation arises for ensuring payment of salary. In cases where institution is not at all in grant-in-aid list of State Government, there is no issue as salary has to be ensured by Management from its own resources, and State has no role to play in the same. In case institution is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are applicable, and papers are received for ensuring payment of salary, then at the said point of time, salary can be refused to an incumbent in case it is found that the appointment has been made in contravention of the statutory provisions or against any other post other than the sanctioned post. Chapter II Regulation 19, thus, gives the District Inspector of Schools one more opportunity vis-a-vis the provisions of U.P. Act No.24 of 1971 to re-examine the matter, as U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 provides for ensuring salary for the post against which maintenance grant is paid by the State Government, and the District Inspector of Schools has also to see and ensure that the salary is paid accordingly. "Shall decline to pay salary and other allowances" though couched in negative manner, casts mandatory duty on the District Inspector of Schools, while exercising authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, to see and ensure that no incumbent, whose appointment is in contravention of the provisions of Chapter II of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 or an incumbent who has not been appointed against sanctioned post, gets salary. There are two stages of examination; (i) Pre-appointment stage, in accordance with Section 16FF of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 read with Chapter II Regulation 17; (ii) Post-appointment stage in terms of Chapter II Regulation 18 of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, after appointment letter is issued. Qua pre-appointment examination, District Inspector of Schools under Section 16FF of U.P. Act No.2 of 1921 has no authority to withhold the approval of selection where the incumbent possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and is otherwise eligible whereas once approval has been accorded in terms of Section 16FF of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, and incumbent has been issued appointment letter, and has joined and claim of salary is covered under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, then before release of salary, District Inspector of Schools has to see that the incumbent has not been appointed in contravention of Chapter II of U.P. Act No. 2of 1921 and has not been appointed against non sanctioned post. District Inspector of Schools has to satisfy himself on these two counts while undertaking exercise under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 read with Chapter II Regulation 19. Both the provisions operate in different field and deals with different stages; i. e. (i) Pre-appointment and (ii) Post appointment state, as such to say that once appointment has been approved under Section 16FF of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1921, grant of salary is automatic, cannot be accepted and District Inspector of Schools has to undertake requisite exercise before release of salary."

Having noticed the rival submissions the stage is now set to deal with the issues that arise. At the very outset 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. It is in that backdrop that Ajay Singh [and in the considered view of this Court correctly] holds that it is incumbent upon the Selection Committee to draw a chart evidencing a comparitive analysis of the respective merit of candidates and the award of quality point marks. Undisputedly in the present case not only was no such exercise undertaken, the members who were shown as constituting the Selection Committee have not only denied having participated in any such exercise, they have gone to the extent of asserting that their signatures as stated to appear on the record of selection have been forged. This aspect amounts to a flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed by statute.