Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The undisputed facts are that the Institution in question was granted recognition initially as a High School under Section 7A of Act, 1921 and also declared as minority institution on 13th March, 1995 with reference to the provisions of Act of 1921. Hence Section 16FF of Act, 1921 applies to it from the said date. The petitioner had been offered appointment under letter dated 24th August, 1994 issued by the Management of the institution. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner had joined the institution in question on 1st September, 1994 as Assistant Teacher in Hindi subject. The Regional Joint Director of Education in his order dated 14th July, 2009 recorded a categorical finding that there was no vacancy for L.T. Grade teacher in Hindi subject as on 1st September, 1994. After being declared as minority institution the provisions of Act 1982 seized to have effect and even otherwise in the case of having been declared as minority institution the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher could be made only on the recommendation of Selection Committee as provided under Section 16 FF of Act, 1921.

The Writ Court in the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2009 has considered the five points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which are as follows:

"(a) provisions of Section 16FF of Act, 1921 are not applicable qua appointment of teaches in recognised and aided minority intermediate colleges in view of the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982,
(b) the procedure infact applicable under Section 16FF had been followed and therefore, the order which records otherwise is factually incorrect,
(c) full and fair opportunity of hearing to controvert the allegations made by the Management had not been afforded to the petitioner and therefore, the order is in violation of principles of natural justice,
(d) If Section 16FF of Act, 1921 is taken to be applicable qua appointment of L.T. Grade teachers, the appointment of other teachers is also liable to be struck down on the same ground.
(e) factual findings recorded by the Regional Joint Director of Education qua working of the petitioner are perverse."
The facts before this Court are clearly distinguishable. The issue up for consideration is as to what procedure is to be applied qua appointment of teachers in minority intermediate college. In view of Section 30 of Act, 1982, the provisions of Commission/Board Act will not apply qua appointment of teachers in minority high school/ intermediate college. No change has been made vis-a-vis the provisions which were applicable under Act, 1921 prior to the enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982 qua the minority institutions. The procedure for appointment of teachers in minority intermediate college continues to be regulated by Section 16E read with Section 16FF of Act, 1921. Such provisions and procedures prescribed thereunder have continued in operation for decades together and at no point of time such provisions which regulates the mode and manner of selection and appointment of teachers in a minority institution have been found to be hit by Article 30 of the Constitution of India.