Holding

Appointment of a teacher under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is contingent upon mandatory DIOS approval; without such approval the selection process is incomplete and no vested right or deemed appointment arises, and the applicable rules are those in force at the time of consideration.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the appointment of three teachers in two minority colleges, arguing that the selection process was not complete because the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) had not approved the proposals before the amendment of Regulation 17. The colleges contended that once the management forwarded the names to the DIOS, the candidates acquired a vested right to appointment and that the old rules should govern vacancies that arose before the amendment. The Supreme Court examined Section 16‑FF(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which makes DIOS approval a mandatory pre‑condition for appointment, and held that without such approval the appointment process is incomplete and no vested right arises. The Court rejected the notion of a ‘deemed appointment’ under Regulation 18, noting that neither the Act nor the Regulations prescribe a time‑limit for DIOS approval nor any automatic appointment on delay. It further clarified that candidates must be considered according to the rules in force at the time of consideration, not the rules in force when the vacancy arose. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the appointments must follow the amended regulations.

Issues considered

Whether the selection process concluded and the candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed before the amendment of the Regulations?
Whether the Act, read with the Rules and Regulations, contemplates a ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not approve within 15 days?
Whether the teacher posts could be filled as per the Rules and Regulations that existed when the vacancies arose, rather than the amended Regulations?

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921s. 16-E, s. 16-FF

Subjects

appointment of teachersminority institutionsDIOS approvalvested rightdeemed appointmentservice lawregulation amendmentU.P. Intermediate Education Act

Judgment

[2023] 4 S.C.R. 969 969

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. A
v.
RACHNA HILLS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023)
APRIL 27, 2023 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Service Law: Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act,
1921: ss. 16-E, 16-FF – Appointment of teachers in minority
institutions – Procedure for selection and appointment – Initiation C
of the process of selection of teachers – Proposals forwarded to the
District Inspector of Schools-DIOS for approval – However, before
the grant of the requisite approval, Regn 17 was amended, prescribing
a new selection procedure – Thereafter, DIOS returned the proposal
for compliance with the new procedure – Writ petitions challenging
the decision of DIOS – High Court held that once the names are D
forwarded for approval of the DIOS, the selection process concludes
and the proposed candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed;
and that the vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules
have to be governed by the Rules that existed at the time such
vacancies arose – On appeal, held: Approval of DIOS is mandatory E
for appointment and that the Act injuncts the appointment of a teacher
without such approval – Legal regime does not contemplate any
concept of deemed appointment if the DIOS does not decide upon
the proposal within 15 days – Reliance on the principle that Rules
that existed at the time when vacancies arose will govern the
appointments is misplaced – Candidate has a right to be considered F
in the light of existing Rules, which implies Rules in force as on the
date of consideration – On facts, the process of appointment cannot
be said to have been concluded without obtaining the mandatory
approval of the DIOS, and as such, there is no vested right of the
candidate to be appointed before the amendment of Regulation – G
Unless the approval contemplated u/s. 16-FF(3) is accorded, no
appointment could take place – Thus, the appointment would be
governed by the amended Regulations which is in force at the time of
consideration – High Court erred in holding that the shortlisted
candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed – Order passed
by the High Court is set aside – Regn 17, 18. H
969
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sub-section (3) of section 16-FF of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act 1921 provides that no person
selected and proposed to be appointed as a teacher by the
Management shall be appointed till the proposal is approved by
B the DIOS. If the expressions ‘no person’, ‘shall be appointed’,
and ‘unless’ employed in sub-section (3) are given their ordinary
meaning, which is the foremost of the linguistic canons of
construction of legislation, there is no hesitation in holding that
appointment is subject to the mandatory approval of DIOS. The
process of appointment cannot be said to have been concluded
C without obtaining the mandatory approval of the DIOS, and as
such, there is no right, much less a vested right, of the candidate
to be appointed. Thus, in view of the clear statutory mandate
under Section 16-FF(3) of the Act, the High Court has committed
an error in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent nos. 1
D to 3 have acquired a vested right to be appointed. [Paras 19,
21][979-D-E; 980-E]
1.2 The appointments are to be made under Section 16-E
of the Act. Section 16-F of the Act provides for the constitution
and recommendation of Selection Committees and Section 16-
E FF therein specifically relates to minority institutions. Regulation
18(1) provides for the time within which an order of appointment
is to be issued by a Manager to the selected candidate. According
to which, where the recommendation is made by a Selection
Committee constituted under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section
16-F of the Act, an order of appointment is to be issued within 15
F days of the receipt of the recommendation of the Selection
Committee. Whereas, in the case of an institution referred to in
Section 16-FF of the Act, i.e., a minority institution, as in the
instant case, it is to be issued within 15 days of the receipt of the
approval of the authority specified therein. Neither Section 16-FF
G of the Act nor Regulation 18 provides the period within which
approval is to be accorded. Further, neither of the two provisions
provide for deemed appointment in the event of delay in granting
approval. Therefore, unless the approval contemplated under
Section 16-FF(3) is accorded, no appointment could take place.
[Para 23][981-E-G]
H
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 971
& ORS.

1.3 In any case, when the relevant statutory provision, i.e. A
Section 16-FF(3) itself makes approval by DIOS mandatory for
appointment to the post of teacher, a Regulation made under the
Act could not have provided for a ‘deemed appointment’.
Subordinate legislation cannot transcend the prescription of a
statutory provision. Additionally, sub-section (4) of Section 16-
B
FF of the Act has to be read in conjunction with Section 16-FF(2)
therein, which provides that “[t]he procedure to be followed by the
Selection Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as
may be prescribed”. It is only in the cases where the selection
procedure, as prescribed in the Regulations, is followed, that
there cannot be a disapproval unless there is a lack of requisite C
eligibility and qualifications. Thus, the question of deemed
appointment does not arise under section 16-FF(4) of the Act.
[Paras 24, 25][981-H; 982-A-C]
1.4 If the statutory provisions read with relevant
Regulations were to provide for ‘deemed appointment’, there D
would not have been a further remedy against an order of
disapproval by the DIOS. Sub-section (5) of section 16-FF
provides the remedy to the College Management in the event
the DIOS does not grant an approval. As per this, the Management
can within three weeks from the date of receipt of disapproval,
make a representation to the Regional Deputy Director of E
Education. In view of the legal provision as obtained under Section
16- FF of the Act, read with Regulation 18, the submissions of
the respondents’ that there is a ‘deemed appointment’ of selection
under Regulation 18 is rejected. [Paras 26, 27][982-C-E]
1.5 Approval of DIOS is mandatory and that the Act injuncts F
the appointment of a Teacher without such approval. The legal
regime concerning the appointment of Teachers does not
contemplate any concept of deemed appointment if the DIOS does
not decide upon the proposal within 15 days. Under these
circumstances, the reference to and reliance on the principle that G
Rules that existed at the time when vacancies arose will govern
the appointments is misplaced. [Para 29][982-G-H; 983-A]

H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A 1.6 In any event, it is now a settled principle of law that a
candidate has a right to be considered in the light of existing
Rules, which implies Rules in force as on the date of consideration.
Thus, the submission by Respondents, that the vacancies that
existed prior to the amendment of Regulation 17 of Chapter II,
must be governed by unamended rules is rejected. [Paras 30 and
B
33][983-B; 985-C]
Smt. Rachna Hills case Special Appeal Defective No.
42 of 2019; Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing
Committee of Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya
C Mandir Girls’ High School (1998) 2 SCC 461 : [1997]
5 Suppl. SCR 542; Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State
of U.P. and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725 : [2011] 4 SCR
149; Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma
Dadhich and Anr. (2019) 4 SCC 316 : [2019] 1 SCR
585; State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar
D and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 542 referred to Para 20
[2011] 4 SCR 149 referred to Para 30
E
[2019] 1 SCR 585 referred to Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1882
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2019 of the High Court
F of Judicature at Allahabad in SAD No. 42 of 2019.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1883 and 1884 of 2023.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., Harish Pandey,
G
Adv. for the Appellants.
Shankey Agrawal, Vikash Singh, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Shreyans
Raniwala, Gaurav Agarwal, Mrs. Shristi Gupta, Abhishek Sharma, Advs.
for the Respondents.
H
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 973
& ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Schools and intermediate educational institutions in the State
of Uttar Pradesh are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act, 19211, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. The
procedure for the selection and appointment of Heads of Institutions B
and Teachers in minority institutions is provided in Section 16-FF of the
Act and Regulation 17 of the Regulations2. While the detailed procedure
for selection is laid down in Regulation 17, sub-section (3) of Section 16-
FF of the Act mandates that no person selected as a Teacher shall be
appointed unless the proposal for appointment is approved by the District
C
Inspector of Schools3.
2. In the present case, two minority institutions initiated the process
of selection of Teachers and forwarded their proposals to the DIOS for
approval. Before the requisite approval was granted, the Government
amended Regulation 17, prescribing a new procedure for selection.
Consequently, the DIOS returned the proposal for compliance with the D
new procedure. The institutions challenged the DIOS’ decision requiring
the Management to follow the new Rules by filing writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. By the orders impugned before us, the High Court held that,
once the Management forwards the names for approval of the DIOS, E
the selection process concludes and the proposed candidates acquire a
vested right to be appointed. The High Court also referred to and relied
on a principle that vacancies that arise prior to the amendment of Rules
have to be governed by the Rules that existed at the time such vacancies
arose. The State of U.P. is in appeal before us. Supporting the decisions
F
of the High Court, the Respondents also argued before us that the
Regulations contemplate a ‘deemed appointment’ if the DIOS does not
confirm the appointment within 15 days of receiving the proposal. We
have answered all the three questions.
4. Allowing State’s appeals, we have held that the selection process
concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted. G

1
hereinafter ‘the Act’.
2
Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act 1921, Chapter II, Regulation 17;
hereinafter ‘Regulation 17’.
3
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, section 16-FF(3) read with section 2(bb);
hereinafter ‘DIOS’. H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A Having examined the statutory regime along with the subordinate
legislation, we found that there is no place for a deemed appointment.
We have also clarified that the principle relied on by the High Court for
applying old rules for past vacancies is neither applicable to the facts of
the present cases nor good law in view of recent decisions of this Court.
B 5. We will now refer to the necessary facts before recording
submissions of the parties, followed by reasons and our decision.
6. Facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 1882 and 1883 of 2023: Rakha
Balika Inter College, Fatehgarh, Farrukabad, U.P., hereinafter referred
to as the Respondent College, is a recognized aided minority institution,
C imparting education up to the level of intermediate. On 04.10.2017, the
College issued an advertisement inviting applications for the selection
and appointment to three posts of Assistant Teachers. The Selection
Committee constituted by the College processed the applications and,
by its proceedings dated 17.01.2018, shortlisted and recommended the
names of Respondents nos. 1 to 3 to the College Management.
D
7. The Management accepted the recommendation and by its letter
dated 10.02.2018 sought the approval of the DIOS, Farrukabad, for the
appointment of Respondent nos. 1 to 3 as Assistant Teachers. The DIOS,
by his letter dated 08.03.2018, informed the Management that the proposal
for approval is incomplete and therefore suggested that necessary
E information with supporting documents may be furnished for the grant
of approval.
8. Before the Respondent College could send the necessary
information, the Regulations prescribing the process of appointment were
amended. The amended provisions came into force w.e.f. 12.03.2018.
F Consequently, the DIOS, by its letter dated 14.03.2018, returned the
applications to the Respondent College with a request to process the
proposal as per the amended Regulations.
9. The Respondent-candidates challenged the above-referred
decision of the DIOS by filing writ petition before the High Court of
G Judicature at Allahabad4. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated
07.05.2018, set aside the decision and directed the DIOS to reconsider
the decision, on the ground that the amended Regulations would not
apply as the selection process had attained finality.

4
H Writ Appeal No. 11283 of 2018.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 975
& ORS. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

10. Following the directions of the Single Judge, the DIOS A
reconsidered the matter and passed an order on 11.10.2018, stating that
the selection process did not culminate in the grant of approval under
Section 16-FF of the Act and as such the selection is not final. The
DIOS observed that before the appointment of Respondents could be
approved, the Regulations stood amended, necessitating compliance with
B
the new procedure for selection. This decision of the DIOS was again
challenged by the Respondent- candidates in a writ petition5. The learned
Single Judge held that the order of the DIOS dated 11.10.2018 was in
contravention of the earlier direction of the Court dated 07.05.2018 and
therefore directed the personal presence of the DIOS, Farrukabad. On
a subsequent day, i.e., on 16.01.2019, the Single Judge directed the DIOS C
to comply with the original direction of the Court dated 07.05.2018.
11. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ appeal against the
original order of the Single Judge dated 07.05.20186. By the order
impugned herein, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
writ appeal on the ground of delay as well as on the merits of the dispute. D
On merits, the Division Bench held that the selection process with respect
to vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Regulations
would be governed by the unamended Regulations. Accordingly, it noted
that the amendment of Regulation 17 would have no bearing on the
request for approval by the DIOS. It is against this order dated 16.01.2019
that the State of Uttar Pradesh filed the first Civil Appeal No. 1882 of E
2023. The connected Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2023 arises out of the
subsequent order of the Single Judge dated 16.01.2019, directing the
DIOS to comply with the original directions under order dated
07.05.20187.
12. Facts in Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2023: M/s Farrukabad F
City Girls Inter College is a recognized aided minority institution. This
College issued an advertisement on 04.12.2017 inviting applications for
selection to the post of Assistant Teacher. In a similar turn of events,
before the DIOS could consider granting approval, the amended
Regulations came into force on 12.03.2018. Consequently, the DIOS, by G
an order dated 19.03.2018, directed the College to resend the proposal
for approval after conducting the selection process in terms of the
5
Writ Appeal No. 27341 of 2018.
6
Special Appeal Defective No. 42 of 2019.
7
In Writ Appeal No. 27341 of 2018. H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A amended Regulations. The recommended candidates filed a writ petition8,
which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court on
01.11.2018. State’s writ appeal9 against the said order was dismissed by
the Division Bench on 18.01.2019 by simply following the decision in the
first case, Smt. Rachna Hills case10. The third Civil Appeal No. 1884 of
2023 is filed by the State against this decision of the Division Bench.
B
13. Submissions by the Parties: Additional Solicitor General,
Shri Vikramjit Banerjee and Shri VK Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri Harish Pandey, AOR appeared for the State of U.P. They
have submitted that the Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench,
committed a serious error in assuming that the selection process was
C complete before the amendment dated 12.03.2018 had come into force.
As the approval of DIOS was not granted, no vested right of
appointment was created in favour of the Respondents. Consequently,
they submitted that the selection process would have to be governed
by the new amended Regulations. They have also contended that as
D the legality of amended Regulations dated 12.03.2018 was not
challenged by the Respondents, the orders of the DIOS dated
14.03.2018, 11.10.2018 and 19.03.2018 are in full compliance with the
statute as well as the Regulations.
14. On the other hand, Shri Shankey Agrawal, Shri Vikash Singh,
E Ms. Jaikriti S Jadeja, Shri Shreyans Raniwala, learned Advocates,
appearing on behalf of the Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 1882 and
1883 of 2023 and Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ms. Shristi Gupta, and Shri
Abhishek Sharma, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the
Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2023, supported the decisions
of the High Court. They contended that the selection process should be
F deemed to have been completed the moment the Committee of
Management proposed the names for approval to the DIOS. They further
submitted that under sub- section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act, the
DIOS does not have the authority to withhold the approval except in
cases where the selected candidates do not possess minimum
G qualifications. They rely on Regulation 18 to contend that the authorities
are duty bound to grant approval within 15 days of the receipt of the

8
Writ Appeal No. 19069 of 2018.
9
Special Appeal Defective No. 38 of 2019.
10
H Special Appeal Defective No. 42 of 2019.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 977
& ORS. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

recommendation of the Selection Committee, failing which there shall A
be a deemed appointment. They also relied on certain decisions of this
Court to contend that Rules existing as on the date on which the vacancy
arose will govern the selection process. They would, therefore, submit
that amendment of the Regulations cannot adversely impact the
appointment of the present Respondents.
B
15. Issues: The following issues arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the selection process concluded, and the candidates
acquired a vested right to be appointed before the
amendment of the Regulations?
(ii) Whether the Act, read with the Rules and Regulations made C
thereunder, contemplates ‘deemed appointment’ if the
approval of the DIOS is not given within a period of 15
days?
(iii) Whether the posts of teachers could be filled as per the
Rules and Regulations that existed when the vacancies arose D
and not as per the amended Regulations?
16. Educational institutions like the Respondent Colleges are
conducted through a Committee of Management, recognised under
Section 16-A of the Act11. The Management is empowered to appoint
Teachers as well as the Head of the Institution12 as per the procedure E
prescribed in the Act, and the Regulations made thereunder. In the
case of institutions established and administered by minorities, the
Management constitutes a five- member Selection Committee to
shortlist and recommend candidates for appointments to the
Management13. After receiving the recommendations of the Selection F
Committee, the Management proposes the names to the DIOS for
approval.
17. On 12.03.2018, the Government of Uttar Pradesh notified
amendments to Chapter II of the Regulations, including Regulation 17,
which now prescribes a written examination for the selection of Teachers
G
in minority institutions.

11
hereinafter ‘the Management’.
12
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, section 16-E.
13
U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, section 16-E read with proviso to section 16-
FF(1). H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A Re issue no. 1: Whether the selection process concluded,
and the candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed before
the amendment of Regulations?
18. To consider the submissions of the Respondents that the
candidates whose names are recommended by the Management for
B approval by the DIOS acquire a vested right to be appointed as Teachers,
it is necessary to examine Section 16-FF:
16-FF. Savings as to minority institutions
(1) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section

C (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 (I) of Article 30 of the Constitution shall
consist of five members (including its Chairman), nominated
by the Committee of Management:
D
Provided that one of the members of the Selection Committee
shall —
(a) in the case of appointment of the Head of an Institution,
be an expert selected by the Committee of Management
from a panel of experts prepared by the Director;
E
(b) in the case of appointment of a teacher be the Head of
the Institution concerned.
(2) The procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee
referred to in sub- section (1) shall be such as may be
F prescribed.
(3) No person selected under this section shall be appointed,
unless —
(a) in the case of the Head of an Institution the proposal
of appointment has been approved by the Regional Deputy
G Director of Education; and
(b) in the case of a teacher such proposal has been
approved by the Inspector.
(4) The Regional Deputy Director of Education or the
Inspector, as the case may be, shall not withhold approval
H
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 979
& ORS. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

for the selection made under this section where the person A
selected possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed and
is otherwise eligible.
(5) Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education or the
Inspector, as the case may be, does not approve of a candidate
selected under this section, the Committee of Management B
may, within three weeks from the date of receipt of such
disapproval, make a representation to the Director in the case
of the Head of Institution, and to the Regional Deputy Director
of Education in the case of a teacher.
(6) Every order passed by the Director or the Regional Deputy C
Director of Education on a representation under sub-section
(5) shall be final.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Sub-section (3) of section 16-FF of the Act provides that no
person selected and proposed to be appointed as a teacher by the D
Management shall be appointed till the proposal is approved by the DIOS.
If the expressions ‘no person’, ‘shall be appointed’, and ‘unless’
employed in sub-section (3) are given their ordinary meaning, which is
the foremost of the linguistic canons of construction of legislation, we
have no hesitation in holding that appointment is subject to the mandatory E
approval of DIOS. The process of appointment cannot be said to have
been concluded without obtaining the mandatory approval of the DIOS,
and as such, there is no right, much less a vested right, of the candidate
to be appointed.
20. This Court had the occasion to examine the effect of approval F
by the DIOS in Raj Kumari Cecil (Smt.) v. Managing Committee of
Laxmi Narain Bhagwati Devi Vidya Mandir Girls’ High School 14,
while holding that the appointment of the petitioner therein was
unsustainable and incomplete, as the statutory pre-condition for the
appointment, i.e., approval from the DIOS, was not obtained, it was
observed: G
“4. There is no dispute that the appellant did not possess the
qualifications for being appointed as a Principal of the Higher
Secondary School. It is also not disputed that the appointment
14
(1998) 2 SCC 461. H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A is subject to approval of the competent authority under the
Intermediate Education Act. It is correct that the competent
authority has power to relax the qualification but then again
it is not disputed that the competent authority did not relax
the qualification for the appointment of the appellant as
Principal of the Higher Secondary School of the
B
respondent….
....
13. … The appellant ceased to be Headmistress on upgradation
of school of the respondent to the Higher Secondary School
C as the post was upgraded. She did not possess qualifications
to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary School.
Her qualifications were not relaxed. The competent authority
under the Intermediate Education Act did not grant approval
for her appointment as a Principal which is a precondition
under the law. Since the appointment itself was not approved
D it was not necessary for the Managing Committee of the school
to get consent of the authority concerned for the termination
of her services as a Principal.”
(emphasis supplied)

E 21. In view of the clear statutory mandate under Section 16-FF(3)
of the Act, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have
acquired a vested right to be appointed.
Re issue no. 2: Whether the Act, read with the Rules and
F Regulations made thereunder, contemplates ‘deemed
appointment’ if the approval of the DIOS is not given within a
period of 15 days?
22. Respondents have relied on Regulation 1815 to argue that if
the DIOS fails to grant his approval within 15 days of the proposal made
by the Management, the proposed candidates shall be deemed to have
G
been appointed. Regulation 18, is as under:
“(1) Within fifteen days of the receipt of the recommendation
of the Selection Committee constituted under sub-section (1)
15
Regulations under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, Chapter II, Regulation 18;
H hereinafter ‘Regulation 18’.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 981
& ORS. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

or (2) of Section 16-F, and in case of an institution referred A
to in Section 16-FF, the approval of the authority specified
therein, the Manager shall, on authorisation under resolution
of the Committee of Management, issue an order of
appointment by Registered Post to the candidate in the form
given in Appendix ‘B’ requiring the candidate to join duty
B
within ten days of the receipt of such order, failing which the
appointment of the candidate will be liable to cancellation.
(2) In case of promotions and ad hoc appointments also a
formal order of promotion or appointment in the form as near
as possible to the form referred to in Clause
C
(1) shall be issued to the person concerned under the signature
of the Manager.
(3) A copy of every order referred to in Clauses
(1) and (2) shall be sent to the Inspector and in case of
appointment of the head of institution, a copy thereof shall D
also be sent to the Regional Deputy Director of Education.”
23. We have noticed that appointments are to be made under
Section 16-E of the Act. Section 16-F of the Act provides for the
constitution and recommendation of Selection Committees and Section
16-FF therein specifically relates to minority institutions. Regulation 18(1) E
provides for the time within which an order of appointment is to be
issued by a Manager to the selected candidate. According to which,
where the recommendation is made by a Selection Committee constituted
under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 16-F of the Act, an order of
appointment is to be issued within 15 days of the receipt of the F
recommendation of the Selection Committee. Whereas, in the case of
an institution referred to in Section 16-FF of the Act, i.e., a minority
institution, as in the instant case, it is to be issued within 15 days of the
receipt of the approval of the authority specified therein. Neither
Section 16-FF of the Act nor Regulation 18 provides the period within
which approval is to be accorded. Further, neither of the two provisions G
provide for deemed appointment in the event of delay in granting approval.
Therefore, unless the approval contemplated under Section 16-FF(3) is
accorded, no appointment could take place.
24. In any case, when the relevant statutory provision, i.e. Section
16-FF(3) itself makes approval by DIOS mandatory for appointment to H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A the post of teacher, a Regulation made under the Act could not have
provided for a ‘deemed appointment’. Subordinate legislation cannot
transcend the prescription of a statutory provision.
25. Additionally, sub-section (4) of Section 16-FF of the Act has
to be read in conjunction with Section 16-FF(2) therein, which provides
B that “[t]he procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed”.
It is only in the cases where the selection procedure, as prescribed in the
Regulations, is followed, that there cannot be a disapproval unless there
is a lack of requisite eligibility and qualifications. Thus, the question of
deemed appointment does not arise under section 16-FF(4) of the Act.
C
26. If the statutory provisions read with relevant Regulations were
to provide for ‘deemed appointment’, there would not have been a
further remedy against an order of disapproval by the DIOS. Sub-section
(5) of section 16-FF provides the remedy to the College Management in
the event the DIOS does not grant an approval. As per this, the
D Management can within three weeks from the date of receipt of
disapproval, make a representation to the Regional Deputy Director of
Education.
27. In view of the legal provision as obtained under Section 16-
FF of the Act, read with Regulation 18, we reject the submissions of the
E Respondents’ that there is a ‘deemed appointment’ of selection under
Regulation 18.
Re issue no. 3 : Whether the posts of teachers could be
filled as per the Rules and Regulations that existed when the
vacancies arose and not as per the amended Regulations?
F
28. The Division Bench, as well as the Single Judge of the High
Court, accepted the submission of the selected candidates that the
vacancies to the post of teachers could be filled only as per the Rules
and Regulations that operated when the vacancies arose and not as per
the Regulations that came to be amended thereafter.
G
29. We have already held that approval of DIOS is mandatory
and that the Act injuncts the appointment of a Teacher without such
approval. We have also held that the legal regime concerning the
appointment of Teachers does not contemplate any concept of deemed
appointment if the DIOS does not decide upon the proposal within 15
H days. Under these circumstances, the reference to and reliance on the
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 983
& ORS. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

principle that Rules that existed at the time when vacancies arose will A
govern the appointments is misplaced.
30. In any event, it is now a settled principle of law that a candidate
has a right to be considered in the light of existing Rules, which implies
Rules in force as on the date of consideration. This principle is affirmed
by this Court in Deepak Agarwal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.16, B
as below:
“26. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate
has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules,
which implies the “rule in force” on the date the consideration
took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute C
application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the
law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The
requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is
interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be
considered for promotion. The right to be considered for
promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible D
candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in
Y.V.Rangaiah case lays down any particular time-frame,
within which the selection process is to be completed. In the
present case, consideration for promotion took place after
the amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be E
accepted that any accrued or vested right of the appellants
has been taken away by the amendment.”
31. While reaffirming the above referred principle, in a subsequent
case of Rajasthan State Sports Council and Anr. v. Uma Dadhich
and Anr.17, (in which one of us was a member Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, F
J., as he then was). This Court noted:
“5. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on
behalf of the appellants that the respondent had no vested
right to promotion but only a right to be considered in
accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when G
the case for promotion was taken up. This principle has been
reiterated in several decisions of this Court. (See H.S. Grewal
v. Union of India, Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P., State of
16
(2011) 6 SCC 725.
17
(2019) 4 SCC 316. H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and Union of India v.
Krishna Kumar.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. In a recent decision, in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
v. Raj Kumar and Ors.18, after reviewing a number of decisions on the
B same subject, this Court formulated the following principles:
“70. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished
Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been
consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition
formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that
C have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by
Rangaiah are as under:
1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies
must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which
existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must
D be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.
2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate
has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules,
which implies the “rule in force” as on the date
consideration takes place. The right to be considered for
E promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible
candidates.
3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy
decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the
amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire
F any vested right to being considered for promotion in
accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy
decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation
for the Government to make appointments as per the old
rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended
for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is
G
that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair
and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of
Article 14.

18
H 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS 985
& ORS. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]

4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely A
because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the
appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.
5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to
consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to
the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider B
the cases.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. In view of the clear enunciation of the law, we have no hesitation
in rejecting the submission made by the learned counsels for the
Respondents, that the vacancies that existed prior to the amendment of C
Regulation 17 of Chapter II, must be governed by unamended rules.
34. For the reasons stated above, Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023,
Civil Appeal No. 1883 of 2023, and Civil Appeal No. 1884 of 2023 are
allowed. Accordingly, the following judgments of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad are set aside: judgment dated 16.01.2019 in D
Special Appeal Defective No. 42 of 2019; judgment dated 16.01.2019 in
Writ Appeal No. 27341 of 2018; judgment dated 18.01.2019 in Special
Appeal Defective No. 38 of 2019.
35. No order as to costs.
E
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Surbhi Soni and Rakhi, LCRAs)

F

G

H