Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Section 16-FF was inserted by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975 providing for Savings as to minority institutions. Section 16FF provides for constitution of selection committee for appointment of the head of a institution or a teacher so as to conform to the rights of the minority enshrined under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

"16-FF. Savings as to minority institutions. -(1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (4) of Section 16-E, and Section 16-F, the Selection Committee for the appointment of a Head of Institution or a teacher of an institution established and administered by a minority referred to in Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall consist of five members (including its Chairman) nominated by the Committee of Management:
(6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy Director of Education on a representation under sub-section (5) shall be final."

The minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers in an institution are provided in Regulation 1 Chapter II which refers to Appendix 'A'. From the provisions of Section 16FF (4) of the 1921 Act a noticeable legislative intent is clearly decipherable namely that apart from requiring a selected candidate to possess the minimum qualifications prescribed, it also requires a selected candidate to be "otherwise eligible". Section 16FF was inserted in 1921 Act by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1975 and at the time when it was inserted Regulation 4 Chapter III providing restrictions for appointment of relatives was already there. The Legislature will therefore be presumed to be well aware of the existing provisions of the Regulations as provided for in Section 16FF of the 1921 Act i.e. the requirement of selection of teachers in a minority institution; (i) the candidate should possess the minimum qualifications prescribed (ii) and is otherwise eligible. The above provisions in no uncertain terms indicates that merely possessing of minimum qualifications is not sufficient for a candidate to be selected in a minority institution and the scheme contemplates possession of other eligibilities as prescribed by Regulations.

Reliance has been placed by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Satendra Kumar Misra vs State of U.P. reported in 2007(1) LBESR 204. The said judgment supports the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has been observed therein that there is no bar under section 16FF with regard to any kind of relationship existing between the persons already working and persons to be selected. In the said case, the District Inspector of Schools refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was the nephew of the Principal. Order was challenged in this Court. Learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6 held as follows:

Section 16FF(4) of the 1921 Act contains two requirements for selected candidates; firstly he should possess minimum qualifications and secondly "is otherwise eligible." The words "is otherwise eligible" are wide enough to save any valid conditions for appointment which have been provided in the regulations. Section 16FF (4) has to be read along with the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The mere fact that Section 16FF does not contain any provision for prohibition of appointment of relatives does not lead to the inference that relatives can be appointed despite the statutory restrictions provided for under Chapter III Regulation 4. Learned Single Judge in Satendra Kumar Misra's (supra) case has not referred to Chapter III Regulation 4 hence, the said judgment cannot be said to laying down the correct law.