Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Approval of DIOS Essential for Selection Process of Teachers in Minority Institutions: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the selection process for Teachers in minority educational institutions in the state of Uttar Pradesh concludes only after the mandatory approval of the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS). The judgment was delivered in a batch of civil appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

The appeals, bearing numbers 1882-1884 of 2023, pertained to the selection and appointment of Teachers in minority institutions governed by the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and its associated Regulations. The primary issue before the Court was whether the selection process concluded before the amendment of the Regulations and whether the candidates acquired a vested right to be appointed.

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the selection process could only be deemed complete upon obtaining the approval of the DIOS as mandated by Section 16-FF(3) of the Act. It contended that until the approval is granted, no vested right to appointment is acquired by the candidates. On the other hand, the Respondents claimed that once the Management forwards the names of the selected candidates for approval, the selection process concludes, and the candidates acquire a vested right to be appointed.

After careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the relevant Regulations, the Supreme Court held that the selection process does not conclude until the approval of the DIOS is obtained. It emphasized the mandatory nature of the approval requirement under Section 16-FF(3) of the Act. The Court categorically stated that no vested right to appointment is acquired by the candidates until the approval is granted by the DIOS.

The Court also addressed the contention of the Respondents regarding the existence of a "deemed appointment" provision. It held that neither the Act nor the Regulations provide for such a provision, and subordinate legislation cannot override the statutory requirement of DIOS approval. Therefore, the argument of deemed appointment was rejected by the Court.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of whether the vacancies should be filled based on the rules and regulations in force when the vacancies arose or as per the amended regulations. It held that the vacancies should be filled based on the rules and regulations in force at the time of consideration, not the rules in force when the vacancies arose. The Court referred to established principles and precedents to support its reasoning.

In light of its findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, set aside the judgments of the High Court, and rejected the argument that the vacancies should be governed by the unamended rules. The Court affirmed that the approval of the DIOS is essential for the selection process to conclude, and no deemed appointment arises.

This judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for the selection and appointment of Teachers in minority educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh and provides clarity on the role of DIOS approval in the process.

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.    vs Rachna Hills & Ors.

Latest Legal News