High Court · 1999

passed in the writ petition, the respondents have passed the present impugned order on 01.04.2019, disapproving the selection of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Vide impugned order the respondents have disapproved the proposals sent by the third- respondent on the ground that the amendment was made to the Regulations-17 vide Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Hence, the selection made is contrary to the said amendment.

5. As the post of the Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 31.10.2017 and by letter dated 14.12.2017 itself, the process of appointment was initiated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the process of selection was initiated much prior to issuance of amendment to Regulation-17.

6. To answer the above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied that the institution is a minority and has right to make appointment without prior approval.

7. Even in full bench judgment in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), has formulated a question 5(b), which reads as follows:- "5(b) Whether initiation of process by an advertisement prior to 25 January 1999 can lead to suggest that even after statutory withdrawal of the substantive power of the Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy, it still retains the same after 25 January 1999, merely because the process of selection was initiated earlier."

8. The question 5(b) is answered in paragraph 11, which reads hereinbelow:- "11. In certain other contexts, the Supreme Court has held, for instance, that a selection process has to be governed by the Rules and Government Orders in existence on the date on which the process is initiated. In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "...Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended Rules or the amended Government orders, issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provisions or by necessary intendment indicate the amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections. See P. Mahendran V. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 : JT (1989) 4 SC 459."

9. In view of the above observations, made by this Court the impugned order is contrary to the order of this Court. Hence, requested to quash the same.

10. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as directed by this Court in earlier judgment the respondents have rightly considered the case as per the amended provisions of Regulations- 17 of Chapter- 2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The amendment was made vide order dated

01.03.2018, whereas an selection was made by the Management on 24.02.2018 and appointment on 1.7.2018 which is subsequent to the amendment.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that while interpreting the language used in the Regulations this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) case has held that the Committee of Management is entitled to promote/ appoint such teachers to the vacancy caused who is required to teach the subjects as per the requirement and necessity, for the benefit of Institution. The language which was used in Regulation-17 was also identical to the language used in Regulation 6(i) of Chapter-2 of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

12. Hence, the first objection raised by the respondents in rejecting/ disapproving the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the findings of this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) and as far as second objection is concerned, that issue was answered by the full bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) stating that where the proceedings are initiated for process of selection, the selections would be regulated by the Rules which are governed as on that date. If any amendments, will only be applicable to the subsequent selection process. In the instant case, as the selection process was initiated much prior to the amendment made in March, 2018.

13. In view of the above findings of the above two judgments, as the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 is contrary to law and is accordingly quashed, remanding the matter to the respondents to re-visit the appointment of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

passed in the writ petition, the respondents have passed the present impugned order on 01.04.2019, disapproving the selection of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Vide impugned order the respondents have disapproved the proposals sent by the third- respondent on the ground that the amendment was made to the Regulations-17 vide Government Order dated 12.03.2018. Hence, the selection made is contrary to the said amendment.

5. As the post of the Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 31.10.2017 and by letter dated 14.12.2017 itself, the process of appointment was initiated, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the process of selection was initiated much prior to issuance of amendment to Regulation-17.

6. To answer the above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied that the institution is a minority and has right to make appointment without prior approval.

7. Even in full bench judgment in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), has formulated a question 5(b), which reads as follows:- "5(b) Whether initiation of process by an advertisement prior to 25 January 1999 can lead to suggest that even after statutory withdrawal of the substantive power of the Committee of Management to make ad hoc appointment against short term vacancy, it still retains the same after 25 January 1999, merely because the process of selection was initiated earlier."

8. The question 5(b) is answered in paragraph 11, which reads hereinbelow:- "11. In certain other contexts, the Supreme Court has held, for instance, that a selection process has to be governed by the Rules and Government Orders in existence on the date on which the process is initiated. In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "...Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended Rules or the amended Government orders, issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provisions or by necessary intendment indicate the amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections. See P. Mahendran V. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 : JT (1989) 4 SC 459."

9. In view of the above observations, made by this Court the impugned order is contrary to the order of this Court. Hence, requested to quash the same.

10. In reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as directed by this Court in earlier judgment the respondents have rightly considered the case as per the amended provisions of Regulations- 17 of Chapter- 2 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The amendment was made vide order dated

01.03.2018, whereas an selection was made by the Management on 24.02.2018 and appointment on 1.7.2018 which is subsequent to the amendment.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that while interpreting the language used in the Regulations this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) case has held that the Committee of Management is entitled to promote/ appoint such teachers to the vacancy caused who is required to teach the subjects as per the requirement and necessity, for the benefit of Institution. The language which was used in Regulation-17 was also identical to the language used in Regulation 6(i) of Chapter-2 of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

12. Hence, the first objection raised by the respondents in rejecting/ disapproving the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the findings of this Court in Pati Ram Pal (supra) and as far as second objection is concerned, that issue was answered by the full bench in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra) stating that where the proceedings are initiated for process of selection, the selections would be regulated by the Rules which are governed as on that date. If any amendments, will only be applicable to the subsequent selection process. In the instant case, as the selection process was initiated much prior to the amendment made in March, 2018.

13. In view of the above findings of the above two judgments, as the impugned order dated 01.04.2019 is contrary to law and is accordingly quashed, remanding the matter to the respondents to re-visit the appointment of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad