Statutory recruitment scheme overrides older vacancy rules, and approval cannot be withdrawn on unstated grounds or without fair hearing.

A later statutory scheme under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982 displaced the earlier Regulation 20 process, so vacancies required to be notified to the Commission could not be treated as surrendered for want of fresh sanction. On that basis, cancellation of approval for ad hoc appointments on short-term vacancies was held unsustainable. The text also states that the withdrawal of approval was vitiated by breach of natural justice because affected teachers were not shown to have received effective notice or hearing. It further says the order could not be upheld on fresh grounds not recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, and the cancellation was set aside with consequential benefit to the appointees.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Chapter II, Regulation 20 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 applied to vacancies required to be notified and filled under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982, so as to treat the posts as surrendered for want of fresh sanction. (ii) Whether the approval granted for ad hoc appointments could be cancelled in respect of short-term vacancies on the same ground. (iii) Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) Whether the impugned order could be sustained on grounds not recorded by the District Inspector of Schools.

Issue (i): Whether Chapter II, Regulation 20 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 applied to vacancies required to be notified and filled under Section 18 of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982, so as to treat the posts as surrendered for want of fresh sanction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the 1982 Act displaced the earlier procedure by which the Committee of Management advertised and filled sanctioned posts. Once vacancies were required to be notified to the Commission, the Committee of Management had no power to advertise them under the earlier regulatory framework. Regulation 20, which presupposed such power in the Management, could not operate where the later Act had substituted an entirely different method for selection and appointment. The reason that the posts had lapsed or stood surrendered under Regulation 20 therefore had no application.

Conclusion: The objection based on surrender of posts under Regulation 20 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval granted for ad hoc appointments could be cancelled in respect of short-term vacancies on the same ground.

Analysis: The cancellation order proceeded on a single ground, namely, lapse of posts under Regulation 20. That ground, even if assumed, could not govern short-term vacancies. No independent reason was recorded for cancelling approval in respect of those vacancies, and the same reasoning could not justify cancellation of approval for all appointments indiscriminately.

Conclusion: The cancellation of approval in respect of short-term vacancies was unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The record did not establish that the petitioners were directly served with notice or that they were given an effective opportunity of hearing before the approval was withdrawn. A bare assertion in the counter-affidavit was insufficient when the notice produced did not show any direction requiring the Manager to inform the petitioners. In the absence of proof of notice to the affected teachers, the requirement of fair hearing was not met.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned order could be sustained on grounds not recorded by the District Inspector of Schools.

Analysis: The impugned order had to stand or fall on the reasons actually recorded by the authority. New grounds such as alleged collusion or falsity of the approval could not be added later in the writ proceedings to justify the order. The validity of the administrative action had to be judged by the stated reasons alone.

Conclusion: The order could not be upheld on fresh grounds raised later.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation of approval was set aside, and the petitioners were held entitled to the consequential benefit flowing from their ad hoc appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later statutory scheme substitutes the earlier method of advertising and selection, the earlier regulation based on the Management's power to advertise cannot be invoked to treat vacancies as surrendered; an administrative order must also be supported only by the reasons recorded in it and must satisfy the requirement of fair hearing.

---