C. Manimegalai,Tamil Teacher vs The Joint Director of Secondary Education, (Appellate Authority), College Road, Chennai-6 and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same person. At present, she is the Tamil Pandit working in the fifth respondent School.

The fifth respondent School is admittedly an Aided Private School coming under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools

(Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974 framed thereunder. Aggrieved over the order passed by the first respondent, the Joint Director of

Secondary Education, (Appellate Authority), she has preferred the first Writ Petition being W.P.(MD)No.2080 of 2008, wherein under Rules

15(4)(i) and 18, the authority rejected her appeal by order dated 07.02.2008 by holding that there is no infringement of any rule in appointing the

fourth respondent as the Headmaster of the school. The first respondent also stated that the petitioner, having relinquished her claim for promotion,

should not be heard to contend that the relinquishment was only temporary.

The said Writ Petition was admitted on 06.03.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, though an interim injunction was sought for, subsequently, it was

dismissed as not pressed on 16.12.2010. On notice from this Court, a common counter-affidavit is filed in respect of both the Writ Petitions by the

fourth respondent dated 25.04.2011.

Even while the pendency of the first Writ Petition, the petitioner, having found that the appointment of the fourth respondent was approved for

the purpose of grant by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, vide order dated 12.03.2008, has filed the second Writ Petition. In

that Writ Petition, only notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, the third respondent, the District Educational Officer has filed a

counter-affidavit dated 23.04.2009. In the counter-affidavit, he had stated that on an earlier occasion, when the fourth respondent made a claim

for the post of Headmaster in the year 1997, the same was not accepted, as there was a rival claimant by name Tmt.K.Annathai and at the same

time, in the present circumstances, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be allowed. It was contended that the fourth respondent was fully

qualified, as he is having B.Sc and B.Ed., degrees and more than 9 years teaching experience and though the School Committee was responsible

for selecting the fourth respondent, the School Committee was not made as a party with reference to the challenge made by the petitioner and the

petitioner had already relinquished her claim for the post of Headmistress and the same was recorded in her Service Register by the school and she

never made any appeal within the time limit prescribed.

However, when these two Writ Petitions were listed on 15.07.2011, this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions for want of prosecution.

Subsequently, on the petitioner filing applications for restoration, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the

applications and the main Writ Petitions were restored.

Heard the arguments of Mr.P. Santhoshkumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M. Govindan, learned Special Government

Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. S. Xavier Rajini, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

The disposal of the Writ Petition in W.P (MD). No. 2080 of 2008 will also determine the fate of W.P. (MD) No. 8089 of 2008, as it is only a

consequential order made for promotion in favour of the fourth respondent. It must be noted that under Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized

Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, any promotion made is only based on merit and ability and the seniority shall be considered only when

both are approximately equal. In the appeal memo filed by the petitioner under Rule 15(4-A), the only contention made by the petitioner was that

she was senior and the fourth respondent was junior. Additionally, before this Court, it is stated that the fourth respondent himself is a Secretary of

the School and he had latched himself to become the Headmaster, which is unfair. Since this point was never urged before the Appellate Authority,

this Court is not inclined to entertain any attack on that ground. In any event, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools

(Regulation) Acts and the rules framed thereunder, there is no prohibition for a Secretary holding the post of Headmaster as vice versa.

The contention that seniority should be the rule for preference cannot be accepted, as it goes against the rules prescribed thereunder. Insofar as

the other contention that her relinquishment was only temporary and on that ground, she should not be disqualified is concerned, as rightly noted by

the District Educational Officer, the relinquishment was not temporary and it was found entered in the Service Register. In any event, even if the

petitioner had allowed to participate in the selection process, the ultimate selection has to be made only by the School Committee and in the

absence of any bias being attributed to the Committee, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the decision taken by the School

Committee. The only remedy available to the aggrieved teacher is filing an appeal under Rule 15(4-A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private

Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, where the authority has power to go into all issues. In the present case, the authority, after considering the over

all circumstances, rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Whether this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can go behind

the wisdom of the School Committee as approved by the appellate authority?. The question is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court vide its

judgment in S. Sethuraman Vs. R. Venkataraman and Others, dealt with the similar order passed by a private school Management and analysing

the scope of rule, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:

While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority has indisputably a plenary power. It may not only consider the respective

educational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates

had better merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the views of the Managing Committee. If two views are possible,

ordinarily, the view of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail.

It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to apply the correct principles of law in this case. Each one of its reasons, in our considered opinion,

is wholly untenable. It suffers from misdirection in law.

If the appellate authority thought otherwise, its order would not be sustainable. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the High Court to

apply its mind on the jurisdictional question raised by the appellant. It should have tested the orders of the appellate authority and consequently of

the learned Single Judge of the High Court, on their own merits and not dehors the same.

In the light of the above, this Court cannot go into the impugned orders and take a different view on the settled matter and hence, W.P. (MD)

No. 2080 of 2008 stands dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of W.P. (MD). No. 2080 of 2008, W.P. (MD) No. 8089 of 2008, challenging the consequential approval granted in

favour of the fourth respondent, is also dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there is no order as

to costs.