Case: A.A. Calton Vs. The Director Of Education &amp; Another

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. A. P. Joseph, respondent 2 herein as the Principal of the 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 1073. The Selection Committee constituted under Section16E of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 10211021 hereinafter referred to as the Act) recommended three persons viz. Shri Bindeshwari Prasad, Shri S. C. 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 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 August 10, 1075 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 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 2 to the post by his order dated March 8, 1077. 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 leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court.2. 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 U. P. Act 26 of 1075 which had come into force on August 18, 1075, the power of the power of the Director to make an appointment had been taken away in relation to minority institutions. 2. In any event the Director could not have appointed respondent 2 for the post since his selection had been disapproved earlier by the Deputy Director.3. Both these contentions were negatived by the High Court. They are again urged before us.

Court's reasoning:
4. It is no doubt true that Act was amended by U. P. Act 26 of 1975 which came into force on August 18, 1975 taking away the power of the Director to make an appointment under Section16-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 Section16-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 Section16-f of the Act commencing from the stage from the stage of calling for applications for a post up to the date on which the Director becomes entitled to make a selection under Section 16-f (4) (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.Section16-f of the Act cannot, therefore, be construed 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 exiting right, unless the statute either expressly nor 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 U. P. Act 26 of 1975 should have been followed in the present case.5. 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 Section16-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. Respondent 2 satisfied the requirement of sub-section(4) of Section16-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 that under Section16-F (4) of the Act it is the Director who is authorised to make the appointment of a Principal and not the Director who is authorised to make the appointment of a Principal and not a Deputy Director. There is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.