9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The validity of the appointment of the Principal of a minority institution u/s 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the subsequent appointment made by the Director after the High Court quashed the initial selection. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Validity of Director's Appointment The appellant challenged the appointment made by the Director, contending that it was contrary to the provisions of the Act post an amendment by U.P. Act 26 of 1975. The amendment withdrew the Director's power to appoint in minority institutions. However, the Court held that the amendment did not apply retrospectively to ongoing proceedings under section 16-F of the Act. The selection process had begun in 1973, and the Director's appointment post-amendment was deemed legal as the law had no retrospective effect on prior proceedings. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions should not impair existing rights unless expressly directed to do so. Issue 2: Disapproval of Selection by Deputy Director The appellant also argued that the Director could not appoint respondent No. 2 as his selection had been disapproved by the Deputy Director previously. The Court noted that the Act did not prohibit considering a candidate whose selection had been disapproved once. The Director had the authority to appoint a qualified person from the applicant pool, as per section 16-F(4) of the Act. As respondent No. 2 met the criteria, the Court found no disqualification based on the earlier disapproval. Additionally, the Act authorized the Director, not the Deputy Director, to make the appointment of a Principal. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Director's appointment post-amendment was valid, and there was no disqualification for respondent No. 2 based on the earlier disapproval. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment, and no costs were awarded.
|
