Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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