Civil Appeal No 2264 of 1979
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th March 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 417 of 1977
RK Jain for the Appellant
Bishamber Lal Khanna and SK Gupta for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 appellant had questioned the validity of the appointment of Mr AP 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 Selection Committee constituted under section 16 E of the UP Intermediate Education Act 1921 hereinafter referred to as the Act recommended three persons viz
Shri Bindeshwari Prasad 600 Shri SC Khyali and the appellant
The appellant was given the 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 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 on the third occasion as being without jurisdiction and having regard to the fact that the post in question was that of the Principal directed the Director of Education to make an appointment in accordance with section 16F4 of the Act
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court after considering the cases of the qualified candidates who had applied for the vacancy in question the Director appointed respondent No 2 to the post by his order dated March 8 1977
The appellant questioned this appointment by the writ petition 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
Before the High Court the appellant raised two contentions 1
The appointment made by the Director was opposed to the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood on the date of the appointment since on that day by reason of the amendment made to the Act by UP 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
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
Both these contentions were negatived by the High Court
They are again urged before us
601 Section 16 F of the Act as it stood prior to August 18 1975 read thus  16 F 1 Subject to the provisions 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 1 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 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
Such 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 immediately conveyed to the Inspector
2 The name of the selected candidate shall be forwarded for approval in the case of a teacher by the Principal or Headmaster to the Inspector and in the case of Principal or Headmaster by the Chairman of the Selection Committee to the Regional Deputy Director Education
A statement showing the names qualifications and other particulars as may be prescribed of all candidates who may have applied for selection shall also be sent along with the name of the selected candidate
The Inspector or Regional Deputy Director Education as the case may be shall give his decision within two 602 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 1 the management may within three weeks of the receipt of the disapproval make a representation against it to the Director in the case of a Principal or Headmaster and to the Regional Deputy Director Education in the case of a teacher and the decision of the Director or the Regional Deputy Director Education as the case may be in the matter shall be final
4 Where the recommendation made under subsection 2 has been disapproved and the representation of the management if any under sub section 3 has been rejected the Selection Committee shall proceed to select and recommend another name for approval as provided under section 16 E and 16 F
If the 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 candidates applying for the vacancies and such appointment shall be final
 It is no doubt true that the Act was amended by UP Act 26 of 1975 which came into force on August 181975 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 amending Act did not however provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under section 16 F of the Act
Nor do we find any words in it which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings
The process of selection 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 F4 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 candidates
Section 16 F of the Act cannot therefore be construed 603 as merely a procedural provision
It is true that the Legislature may pass laws with retrospective effect subject to the recognised constitutional limitations
But it is equally well settled that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect
In the instant case admittedly the proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations 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 Court had directed the Director to exercise that power
Although the Director in the present case exercised that power subsequent to August 18 1975 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 retrospective effect
It did not have any effect on the proceedings which had commenced prior to August 18 1975
Such proceedings had to be continued in accordance with the law as it stood at the commencement of the said proceedings
We do not therefore find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the law as amended by the UP Act 26 of 1975 should have been followed in the present case
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 selection had been disapproved by the Deputy Director should not be 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 where the post to be filled up is that of a Principal or a Headmaster the Director may appoint any qualified person from amongst the candidates who had applied for the vacancy and that such appointment shall be final
The respondent No 2 satisfied the requirement of sub section 4 of section 16 F of the Act
The fact that the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Committee recommending him for the post in question once before cannot be construed as amounting to a disqualification
It is also to be noticed 604 that under section 16 F4 of the Act it is the Director who is authorised to make the appointment of a Principal and not the Deputy Director
There is therefore no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
In view of the foregoing the appeal is dismissed
There shall be no order as to costs
HSK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Under section 16 F4 of the UP Intermediate Education Act 1921 the Director of Education had the power to appoint the Principal of a recognised institution from amongst the qualified persons who had applied for that post if the recommendation made under sub section
2 by the Selection Committee constituted under section 16 E had twice been disapproved by the Regional Deputy Director and the representation of the management of the institution if any under sub s3 against that disapproval had been rejected
This power of the Director in relation to minority institutions was taken away by the amending Act 26 of 1975 with effect from August 18 1975
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 section 16 F4 of the Act
The process of selection for the post in question had been commenced in 1973 and the 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 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 Director
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
Dismissing the appeal  HELD No retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect
The amending Act had no retrospective effect
It did not provide expressly that the amendment in question would apply to the pending proceedings under section 16 F nor did it contain any words which by necessary intendment would affect such pending proceedings
The process of selection under section 16 F commencing from the stage of calling for applications or a post 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 are created in favour of one or the other candidates
603 B 602 G H 603 A In the instant case the proceedings for the selection had commenced in the year 1973 and after the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendations 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
Although the Director exercised that power subsequent to August 18 1975 on which date the amendment came into force it cannot be said that the selection made by him was illegal
603 B D The Act does not state that a person who had been recommended by a Selection Committee once and whose selection had been disapproved by the Deputy Director should not be considered for the post in question by the Director when he exercised his power under section 16 F4
The fact that the Deputy Director had disapproved the recommendation 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 H