Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1983 (3) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... validity of the appointment of Mr. A.P. Joseph, respondent No. 2 herein as the Principal of the Ranikhet Intermediate College, Ranikhet, which was a minority institution having the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution in preference to him. The proceedings for the selection of a qualified person to the post in question commenced in the year 1973. The Selection Committee constituted under section 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) recommended three persons viz. Shri Bindeshwari Prasad Shri S.C. Khyali and the appellant. The appellant was given the third rank in that recommendation. The Regional Deputy Director of Education did not approve of the said selection. The matter was a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... since on that day by reason of the amendment made to the Act by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 which had come into force on August 18, 1975, the power of the Director to make an appointment had been taken away in relation to minority institutions. 2. In any event the Director could not have appointed respondent No. 2 for the post since his selection had been disapproved earlier by the Deputy Director. Both these contentions were negatived by the High Court. They are again urged before us. Section 16-F of the Act, as it stood prior to August 18, 1975 read thus : 16-F. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal, Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless he- (a) possess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted candidate. The Inspector or Regional Deputy Director, Education, as the case may be, shall give his decision within two weeks of the receipt of the relevant papers, failing which approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. (3) Where the Regional Deputy Director, Education, or the Inspector, as the case may be, disapproves for reasons to be recorded in writing of any name proposed under sub-section (1), the management may, within three weeks of the receipt of the disapproval, make a representation against it to the Director in the case of a Principal or Headmaster and to the Regional Deputy Director, Education, in the case of a teacher, and the decision of the Director or the Regional Deputy Director, Education, as the case may be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts are created in favour of one or the other of the candidates. Section 16-F of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed as merely a procedural provision. It is true that the Legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognised constitutional limitations. But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect. In the instant case admittedly the proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations made by the Selection Committee twice .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from amongst the candidates who had applied for the vacancy and that such appointment shall be final. The respondent No. 2 satisfied the requirement of sub- section (4) of section 16-F of the Act. The fact that the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Committee recommending him for the post in question once before cannot be construed as amounting to a disqualification. It is also to be noticed that under section 16-F(4) of the Act it is the Director who is authorised to make the appointment of a Principal and not the Deputy Director. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates