The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs Rachna Hills & Ors.
Background
Two minority-run schools in Uttar Pradesh selected candidates for teaching posts and sent the selections to the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) for the mandatory statutory approval required before any such appointment can take effect. Before the DIOS approved (or even fully processed) the proposals, the State amended its selection Regulations to require a written examination. The DIOS then sent the proposals back, asking the schools to redo the selection under the new rules. The rejected candidates went to the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in their favour, holding that once a school forwards names to the DIOS, the selection is effectively final and creates a vested right to appointment, and that vacancies existing before a rule change should be filled under the old rules. The State of U.P. appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court on all points. First, it held that under Section 16-FF(3) of the Act, no selected candidate can be validly "appointed" until the DIOS actually grants approval, so merely forwarding a name for approval creates no vested right. Second, it rejected the argument that a candidate is "deemed appointed" if the DIOS fails to decide within 15 days, finding that neither the Act nor the Regulations create any such automatic/deemed appointment, and a subordinate regulation cannot override a statute's mandatory-approval requirement. Third, relying on a consistent line of the Court's own precedent, it held there is no absolute rule that vacancies must always be filled under the rules that existed when the vacancy first arose: a candidate only has a right to be considered under whichever rules are in force on the date of actual consideration. Applying all this, since DIOS approval had never been granted before the Regulations changed, the new written-examination procedure validly applied, and the High Court's contrary rulings across all three connected appeals were set aside.
Lesson Learnt
In government or quasi-government appointments requiring a statutory approval step, merely being recommended or shortlisted does not create a legal right to the job: the right to appointment crystallises only once every mandated approval is actually granted, and until then a change in the rules can validly apply to the pending selection.