Retrospective amendment and candidate eligibility under section 16-F(4) did not defeat a pending appointment process.

An amendment curtailing the Director's power under section 16-F(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 did not apply retrospectively to selection proceedings already commenced and pending when the amendment took effect, because the selection process was treated as an integrated proceeding and the statute showed no express or implied intention to disturb pending matters. The Director's appointment made in the pending proceeding was therefore valid. A candidate whose selection had earlier been disapproved by the Deputy Director was not disqualified from consideration under section 16-F(4), because the provision permitted appointment of any qualified applicant for the vacancy and earlier disapproval did not create a statutory bar.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which curtailed the Director's power under section 16-F(4), applied retrospectively to selection proceedings already commenced and pending on the date of the amendment. (ii) Whether a candidate whose selection had earlier been disapproved by the Deputy Director was ineligible to be considered by the Director under section 16-F(4).

Issue (i): Whether the amendment to the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which curtailed the Director's power under section 16-F(4), applied retrospectively to selection proceedings already commenced and pending on the date of the amendment.

Analysis: The selection process under section 16-F was treated as an integrated proceeding beginning with the calling for applications and continuing until the stage at which the Director could make an appointment under section 16-F(4). Rights accrued to the candidates at successive stages of that process. The amending Act did not expressly apply to pending proceedings, nor was any necessary intendment found to give it retrospective effect. As the proceedings had begun before the amendment and had to be continued under the law then in force, the later amendment could not invalidate the Director's power in the pending matter.

Conclusion: The amendment did not operate retrospectively, and the Director's appointment was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether a candidate whose selection had earlier been disapproved by the Deputy Director was ineligible to be considered by the Director under section 16-F(4).

Analysis: Section 16-F(4) authorised the Director, after repeated disapproval of the selection, to appoint any qualified person from among the applicants for the vacancy. The provision did not create a disqualification merely because a candidate had once been recommended and later disapproved. The respondent satisfied the statutory requirement of being a qualified applicant, and the earlier disapproval did not bar consideration by the Director.

Conclusion: The earlier disapproval did not disqualify the respondent, and his appointment was lawful.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the High Court's judgment, and the challenge to the appointment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Unless a statute expressly or by necessary implication provides otherwise, an amendment affecting substantive rights does not apply retrospectively to pending selection proceedings; and where the governing provision authorises appointment from among qualified applicants, an earlier disapproval of a candidate's selection does not by itself disqualify that candidate.

---