AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued by the third respondent school in a newspaper for appointment
to the post of Junior Assistant in the third respondent school.
The claim of the petitioner is that he is working as a Record Clerk in the third respondent school and he is entitled for the appointment to the
post of Junior Assistant by promotion as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules made
thereunder.
This Court while ordering notice of motion after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the third respondent, on 22.02.2010 has
passed an interim order allowing the third respondent school to proceed with the interview and the results shall not be published for a period of
four weeks and the said order stands continued as on date and the third respondent school has filed an application to vacate the said interim order.
It is not in dispute that the third respondent school, in which the petitioner is working as a non-teaching staff as Record Clerk, has rejected the
claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant by order dated 05.02.2010. In fact in the said order, the third respondent
school has chosen to state in the Resolution of the third respondent school dated 20.03.2008 in which the petitioner is one of the member as
nominee of the non-teaching staff and it was decided to fill up the post of Junior Assistant by giving wide publication instead of promoting the
candidates from the same school and in the impugned order the third respondent school has also stated that the petitioner being a party to the said
Resolution cannot claim a right on him to be promoted to the post of Junior Assistant.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself came to be inducted in the School Committee of the third
respondent only on 16.08.2008 and therefore there is no possibility for the petitioner to be a party to the School Committee Resolution dated
20.03.2008 and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the signature of the petitioner which is found in the Resolution of the School
Committee dated 20.03.2008 is only a fabricated one.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the petitioner''s appointment in the re-constituted
School Committee was much earlier and the proposal for approval was sent by the school to the Education Authorities latter and it does not mean
that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the School Committee on the date of the resolution viz., 20.03.2008.
Be that as it may, these are all the issues which cannot be decided in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since it
requires factual appreciation of various aspects, especially when it is the case of the petitioner that the resolution dated 20.03.2008 has not been
signed by him, while on the other hand, it is the case of the third respondent school that on the said date the petitioner himself was a party to the
resolution, being one of the members of the School Committee. In such view of the matter, the only remedy which is available to the petitioner is to
file appeal against the order, which has been passed by the third respondent school dated 05.02.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
appointing as Junior Assistant. Instead of having recourse to the appeal process, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition only challenging
the notification issued by the third respondent school in the newspaper, which is not sustainable.
In such view of the matter, this writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed, however with the liberty to the petitioner to work out his
remedy by filing appeal against the order of the third respondent dated 05.02.2010. The interim order already granted by this Court shall stand
vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.