Holding

The amendment did not have retrospective effect, so the Director’s appointment under s.16‑F(4) was valid.

Summary

The appellant challenged the appointment of A.P. Joseph as principal of a minority college, arguing that an amendment to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (U.P. Act 26 of 1975) had removed the Director of Education’s power to appoint principals of minority institutions, and that the earlier disapproval of the selection committee’s recommendation by the Deputy Director should have disqualified the appointee. The selection process began in 1973, and after two disapprovals by the Deputy Director, the Director appointed the respondent on 8 March 1977 under s.16‑F(4). The Supreme Court held that the amendment had no retrospective effect unless expressly stated, and therefore did not apply to the pending selection proceedings that commenced before the amendment. Consequently, the Director’s appointment was valid, and the earlier disapproval did not constitute a disqualification. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The amendment of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act by U.P. Act 26 of 1975 is retrospective in nature and applicable to pending selection proceedings.
Whether the Director of Education could appoint a principal after the Deputy Director’s disapproval of the selection committee’s recommendation.
Whether the appointment of the respondent violated the provisions of the Act as amended.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 30
U.P. Act 26 of 1975 (amending Act)
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921s. 16-E, s. 16-F(2), s. 16-F(3), s. 16-F(4)

Subjects

statutory interpretationretrospective legislationminority institutionappointment of principaleducation lawSection 16-FArticle 30U.P. Intermediate Education Act

Judgment

5~8

A.A. CAL1'0N
•
A
v.

THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER

B March 25, 1983

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.]

U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921, s. 16-F (4), as amended by U.P,
Act of 1975-Scope of-Amendment not applicable to pending proceedings.
c lnterpretation-Reti'ospective operation of statute.

Under s. 16 F(4) of the U.P. Interm~diate Education Act, 1921 the
Director of Education had the power to appoint the Principal of a recognised
institution from amongst the qualified perspns who had applied for that post,
if the recommendation made under sub-s. (2) by the Selection Committee
D constituted under s. 16-E had twice been disapproved by the Regional Deputy
Director and the representation of the management of the institution, ·if any,
under sub-S.(3) against that disapproval had been rejected. This power of
the Director in relation to minority institutions was taken away by the amend-
ing Act 26 of 1975 with effect from August 18, 1975.

E Respondent No. 2 was appointed Principal of a minority institution by
the Director of Education on March 8, 1977 in exercise of his power under s.
16-F(4) of the Act. The process of selection for the post in question had been
commenced in 1973 and ihe recommendation of the Selection Committee had
been rejected twice by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The
appellant challenged the appointment on the ground that (i) on the date of
appointment the Director had no power to appoint a Principal of a minority
F institution as it had been taken away by the amending Act ; and (ii) that in any
event the Director could not have appointed respondent No. 2 as his selection
had been disapproved earlier by the Deputy Direc]or. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition.
..
Dismissing the appeal,
G
HELD :· No retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provi-
sion so as to impair or take away an existin11 right, unless the statute either
expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retros-
pective effect. The amending Act had no retrospective effect. It did not
provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to the pending
H proceedings under s. 16-F, nor did it contain any words which by necessary
intendment would affect such pending proceedings. The process of selection
under s. 16-F commencing from the stage of calling for applicationsf or a post
/!i..A. C/!i.LTON v. DIRECTO!l., EDUCATION (Venkataramiah, J.) 599.

upto the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection is
an integrated one. At every stage In that process certain rights an.· created A
in favour of one or the ot1'er candidates. [603 B, 602 G-H, 603 Al

In the instant case, the proceedings for the selection had commenced in
the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommenda-
tions made by the Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the·
jurisdiction to make an appointment from a1nongst the qualified candidates, B
who had applied for the vacancy in question. Although the Director exercised
that power subsequent to August 18, 1975 on which date the amendment came

...
into force, it cannot be said th3:t the selection made by him was illegal. [603 B-D]

6_ 'Jhe Act does not state that a person who had been recommended by a ·
Selection Committee onCt' and whose selection-- had been disapproved by the
Deputy Director should not be consider~d for the post in qµestion. by the C
Director when he exercised his power under s. 16-F(4). The fact that the
Deputy Director had disapproved the recomm~ndation of the Selection
·-. Committee recommending respondent No. 2 for the post in question once
before cannot be construed as amounting to a disqualification. [603 F~HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2264 of 1979. D
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
- tbe 30th March, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 417 of 19.77).
E
R.K. Jain for the Appellant.

Bishamber Lal Khanna and S.K. Gupta for the Respondent.

The Judginent of the Court was delivered by
F
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant who was unsuccessful before
the High Court of Allahabad in a writ petition filed by him under
Article 226 of the Constitution has filed this appeal by special leave
against the judgment of the High Court. In the writ petition the
j
appellant had questioned the validity of the appointment ·of G.
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 H
Selection Committee constituted under section 16-E of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act) recommenl!ed three persons viz. Shri Bindeshwari Prasad,
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 2 S.C.R.

Shri S.C. Khyali and the appellant. The appellant was given the
A third rank in that recommendation. The Regional Deputy Director
of Education did not approve of the said selection. The matter was
again remitted to the Selection Committee. On the second occasion,
the Selection Committee recommended the names of the appellant
and respondent No. 2 ·assigning respondent No. 2 a higher rank.
That selection-also was disapproved by the Deputy Director. The
B
Selection Committee thereafter made a third recommendation. The
appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court questioning
the validity of the third selection made by the Selection Committee.
The High Court by its judgment dated August 19, 1975 allowed his
writ petition quashed the selection made by the Selection Committee
.c on the third occasion as being without jurisdiction and having regard
to the fact that the post in question was that of the Principal .Airected
the Director of Education to make an appointment in accordance
with section 16(F)(4) of.the Act. Pursuant to the direction of the
High Courl, after considering the cases of the qualified candidates
who had applied for the vacancy in question, the Director appointed
D respondent No. 2 to the post by his order dated March 8, 1977. The
appellant questioned this appointment by the writ petitition out of
which this appeal arises before the . High Court. The High Court
dismissed the petition. This appeal by special appeal is filed against
the judgment of the High Court.
E
Before the High Court the appellant raised two contentions :

;
I. The appointment made by the Director was opposed
to the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood on
F the date of the appointment 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.
G
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.
H
Both these contentions were negatived by the High Court.
They are again urged before us.
A.A. CALTON v. DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (Venkataramiah, J.) . ~I

Section !6•F of the Act, as it stood prior to August 18, 1975
read thus : 41~

"16-F. fl) Subject to the prov1S1ons hereinafter
.specified, no person shall be appointed as a Principal,
Headmaster or teacher in a recognised institution unless
he- •
(a) possesses the prescribed qualifications or has
been exempted under sub-section (I) of section 16-E,

(b) has been recommended by selection committee
constituted under sub-section (2) or (3), as the case may
be, of the said section and approved, in the case of
Principal or Headmaster by the Regional Deputy Director,
- Education and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector :

•• Provided that if the Inspector is satisfied that for any
institution, no. candidate, who possesses all the prescribed m
qualifications, is available for appointment, he may permit
the institution to employ as a temporary measure any
suitable person for a period not exceeding one year. Sach
period may be extended with the prior approval of the
Inspector:

Provided also that in the case of leave vacancy or of
a vacancy occurring for a part of the session of the

...
)
institution, it shall be lawful for the Committee of
Management to appoint a Principal, Headmaster or
teacher if information of such an appointment is immedia-
tely conveyed to the Inspector.

(2) The name of the selected candidate shall be for-
'.> warded for approval, in the case of a teacher, by the
Principal or Headmaster to the Inspector, and in the case G
of Principal or Headmaster, ·by the Chairman of the
Selection Committee to the Regional Deputy Director,
Education. A statement showing the names, qualifications, e
and other particulars as may be prescribed, of 8fl
candidates who may have applied for selection shall also KI
.... _l be sent along with the name of the selected candidate .
The Inspector or Regionaf Deputy Director, Education,
as the case may be, shall ~ive his decisioll within two
SUPREME COURT !i.EPORTS -(1983) 2 S,C,R.

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 (!),the management may, within three·
. weeks of the receipt of the disapproval, make a representa-
tion against it to the Director in the case of a Principal or
Headmaster and to the Regional Deputy Director, Educa-
tion. in the case of a teacher, and _the decision of the
-Director or.the Regit>nal Deputy' Director, Education, as
th,e case may be, in the matter shall be final.

, (4) Where the recommendation made under sub- -
11ection (2) bas been disapproved and tbe representation
of the management, if any, under sub-section (3) IJ.as been
rejected, the Selection Committee shall proceed to select
and ;ecommend another name for approval as provided
under section 16-E and 16-F. Iftbe selection so made is
again disapproved and the representation, if any, against
.the disapproval has not been accepted, the Regional
Deputy Director, Education in case of a teacher and the
Director in the case of a Principal or Headmaster may
appoint any qualified person out of the list of the candi·
' dates applying for the vacancies and such appointment
shall be final.''

. It is no doubt true that the Act was amended by U.P. Act
26 of 1975 which came into force on August 18,1975 taking away
the power of the Director to make an appointment under section
16-F (4) of the Act in the case of minority institutions. The amend•·
ing Act did not, however, provide expressly that the amendment in
question would apply to pending proceedings under section 16-F of <
6 the Act. Nor do we find any words in. it which by necessary intend-
ment. .would ·affect such pending proceedings. The process of
aelection under section 16-F of the Act commencing from the stage
of calling for applications for ·a post upto the date on which the
Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-F(4)
(as it stood then) is an integrated one. At every stage in that process
certain 'rights are created in favour of one or the other of the '
~andidates. Section 16-F of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed
-
. A.A •. CALTON v. DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (Venkataramiah, J.) . 60t1
as merely a procedural. provision.. It is true that the , Legislature ,
may pass laws with_ retrospective. effect. subject· to . the rec-Ognised_; A
constitutional limitations.: But it ·is. '.equally .well settled. that ,; net; .
retrospective effect should be given to any 'statutory_, provision ~o.; ·an ·
to impair or take away an existing right, unl~ss · tl:ie statute -either ·
expressly or. by necessary implication directs . that· itc should .have ·
such retrospective effect. In the i;,.stant ca~e admittedly the·. proceed~.
B·
.)
· ings for the selection had commenced in the·year 1973 and' after the
Deputy Director had disapproved the recommc;ndations made by, the. _
Selection Committee twice the Director acquired the jurisdiction· to· / .
make an appointment ·from amongst the qualified candidates who
had applied for the , vacancy in question. At the ·instance of the
appellant himself in the earlier writ petition ·filed by him the·. High c
Court had directed the Director to exercise that power. Although
·the Director in the present case exercised that power subsequent to ,
August 18, 19.75 on which date the amendment came· into force, it
cannot be said that the selection made by him was illegal since the
amending law had no retrospe~tive effect. It did not have any ·effect
·on the proceedings which had commenced prior to Augtist 18, 1975. :
. Such proceedings had to be contin11ed in accordance with the law· as
it stood at. the commencement of the said proceedings. We do not,
1therefore, ·find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the law as amended l>y the U.P. Act 26 of 1975 _ '-
should have been followecfin the present'case. . • · · .•' .. ,· . E

' .
In so far ·as the second contention is concerned, it is to be
stated that the ·Act ·does not state· that a person who had been
· · recommended by a Selection· Committee once and whose. sel<;ction.
had been disapproved by the Deputy Director should not be F
considered for the post in question by the Director when he exercises
. his power under. sub·section (4) of section · 16-F of the Act. That.
; provision merely states ·that in such an event, w°here the· post to be .
filled up is that of a Principal or. a Headmaster, the· Director may . ·
. appoint any qualified person fro~ amongst the candidates who had G
applied for the vacancy arid that sue~ appointment shall be final The
respondent No. 2 satisfied the requirement of sub-section (4) of
1

·section 16-F of the Act.. The fact that the Deputy Director had·
disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Cominittee recom- H
mending him for · the· post in question once before cannot be_'
construed as amounting to a disqualification. It is ~!so to. be noticed
, stiPR.ora COURT REPORTS - [1983) 2 s.c.ll.

that; under section 16-F(4) of the Act it is the- Director -who : is:
-A' authonsed -to make the appointment of a Principal a,;_d not the•
-Deputy Director. There is, therefore, no gronnd to interfere· with-. '
the judgment of the High Court .
. ..,,,._,
, ~ - ' --

' c · In vi.W of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. There shall 1
be. no order as to costs. -

_H.S.K~ Appeal dismissei'

:,,,_

. -,~ - .• .
- --- ., .
f, '

.--,·

".
!i-:
"
.+

• I

r

' .
--.< ··•;.
(

.' - . ·- .
; ·- .

. -·
-:
'·. ··---. - -·
. ,- . ' ~ .- ! :
! .

·-