Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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