- (1.) Ranikhet Intermediate College is an aided and recognised institution which is run and administered by the Methodist Educational Service under a Scheme of Administration approved bv the Regional Director of Education. Nainital. under the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. In 1971 a vacancv arose in the office of the Principal of the said institution. The management committee of the institution issued advertisement on 8-4-1971 inviting application for filling the post of Principal. A selection committee was constituted in accordance with the Act and the Regulations which submitted its recommendations to the Deputy Director of Education. Kumaon Region, Nainital. The recommendation made bv the selection committee was. however, disapproved bv the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 6-7-1972 and the management was directed to hold fresh selection. In June 1974 a fresh advertisement was issued and applications were invited for filling the post of Principal. A selection committee was again constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations and it submitted its recommendations to the Deputy Director of Education. This time again the Deputv Director of Education bv his order dated 24-8-1974 disapproved, the recommendations made bv the selection committee and he pointed out reasons for which the recommendations were disapproved. Thereafter the Chairman of the selection committee submitted a representation to the Deouty Director of Education. Bv his letter dated 4-12-1974 the Deputv Director of Education informed the Chairman of the selection committee that the representation (sic) was not satisfactory. He further directed the Chairman of the selection committee to hold fresh selection after issuing advertisement and complying with other necessary formalities. The petitioner who has been officiating on the post of Principal since 1971 and who was allowed to cross efficiency bar was not selected bv the selection committee although he was a candidate for the said post. After the issue of the direction of the Deputv Director of Education directing the selection committee to hold fresh selection for the third time, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the validity of the direction issued by the Deputv Director of Education.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Deputv Director oi Education had no iurisdiction to allow the selection committee to hold selection for the third time. It is urged that under the orovisions of the Act and the Rules no third selection is permissible. In order to appreciate this argument it is necessary to refer to the relevant orovisions of the Act and the Regulations. Section 16-E oi the Act lavs down Qualifications of persons who may be appointed Principal. Head-master and teachers of recognised institutions. It further lavs down the procedure reauired to be followed bv the selection committee in making the selection. Section 16-F lavs down that no person shall be appointed as a Principal. Headmaster or a teacher in a recognised institution unless he fulfils the prescribed Qualifications and is recommended by the selection committee and unless approval is granted bv the Deputy Director of Education in the case of Principal, and Head Master and the District Inspector of Schools in the case of a teacher. Subsection (2) of Section 16-F lavs down that the names of selected candidates in the case of appointment to the post of Principal shall be forwarded for approval to the Regional Deputv Director of Education along with statement showing the names. Qualifications and other particulars as prescribed bv the Regulations. Thereafter Regional Deoutv Director of Education shall give his decision within two weeks on the receipt of the relevant papers failing which the approval shall be deemed to have been accorded. Sub-section (3) empowers the Deputy Director of Education to disapprove the proposal of the management for the appointment of Principal and in the case of disapproval it is open to the management to make representation against the order of disapproval within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the order of disapproval to the Director of Education Thereafter the decision of the Director in the matter shall be final. Sub-sec. (4) provides for the procedure reauired to be followed after the proposal of the management is disapproved bv the Regional Deputy Director of Education under subsection (31 of Section 16-F of the Act. It provides that after the recommendation under sub-section (2) is disapproved and the representation, if any made bv the management is rejected bv the Director of Education, the selection committee shall select and recommend another name for approval in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 16-E and 16-F of the Act. Thus sub-sec. (41 permits holding of a second selection, but it further lavs down that if the second selection is again disapproved and the representation, if any made bv the management against the second order of disapproval is reiected by the Director of Education, no third selection shall be held. Sub-section (4) contemplates that if the selection made at the 2nd selection is disapproved by the Deputv Director of Education and if representation of the management is reiected bv the Director of Education, no further selection shall be held instead the Director of Education is empowered to appoint anv qualified person as Principal from amongst the list of candidates applying for the vacancy and if such appointment is made bv the Director of Education, his order shall be final in the matter. Provisions contained in Section 16-F (2) (3) and (4) make it amply clear that the Act does not contemplate holding of a third selection and it does not confer anv power on the Regional Deputv Director of Education to issue direction to the management or to the selection committee of a recognised institution to hold selection for the third time for filling the vacancy in the Dost of Principal. It appears that the Legislature intended that repeated selection should not be held for an indefinite period of time, instead there should be no selection after the second selection is disapproved and in order to finalise the matter, power was conferred on the Director of Education to appoint anv of the persons applying for the post of Principal, but such a person must be a qualified person.
(3.) In the instant case there is no dispute that the second selection held bv the management of the institution was disapproved bv the Deputy, Director of Education, Nainital. bv his order dated 24-8-1974 as well as bv his order dated 4-12-1974. On the admitted facts of the case it is thus clear that two selections were held for filling the post of Principal of the Institution. Ranikhet Intermediate College but on both the occasions the proposal of the management was disapproved bv the Deputy Director of Education. It is further conceded that the management of the College did not make any representation either at the time of disapproval of the first selection or after the issue of orders dated 24-8-1974 and 4-12-1974. As already noted under sub-s. (31 as well as sub-s. (4) of S. 16-F of the Act the management had a right to make representation against the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Nainital. dated 24-8-1974 and 4-12-1974 challenging the disapproval of its proposal for the appointment of Principal. The management, however, did not make any representation, instead it considered it proper to abide bv the order of disapproval. Once the management did not make representation the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education disapproving the second selection became final and thereafter no third selection could legally be held. In that situation. Director of Education is invested with power to appoint a aualified person from amongst those who applied for the post. The Deputy Director of Educacation had no iurisdiction to direct for holding third selection. The order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 4-12-1974 issuing direction for holding third selection is without iurisdiction.;