S.P. Jalaja vs Karapettai Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School and Others

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.—W.P. No. 20212 of 1993 was filed by the Appellant herein by name S.P. Jalaja, praying the Court to direct the Director of School Education, Madras to forbear from continuing the 3rd Respondent in the writ Petition by name D. Jayaselvi as Headmistress as per the letter of the Director of School Education bearing No. 35/84/93-94 dated 12/10/1993.

W.P. No. 17550 of 1995 was filed by Jayaselvi, the 3rd Respondent in W.P. No. 20212 of 1993, praying the Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the District Educational Officer dated 16.11.1995 and to quash the same and to direct the 3rd Respondent to approve the Petitioner''s promotion and appointment as Headmistress of the said school from 13.10.1993 with salary and all other benefits attached to the post.

The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 30.4.1998 dismissed W.P. No. 20212/ 1993 and as a consequence also dismissed W.P. No. 1/550/1995 as infructuous with a direction to the District Educational Officer to consider the case of the writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 17550/1995 in accordance with law and pass orders.

The Appellant, who is aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge has preferred the above Appeals.

For the sake of convenience, we intend to adopt the cause title given in W.P. No. 20212 of 1993.

The case of the Appellant is that the post of Headmistress of the Karapettai Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School (thereinafter referred to as "School") became vacant in the year 1988 due to the retirement of one Kamalam Sadasivam. The School Authorities, instead of making selection, appointed the 5th Respondent by name D. Jayaselvi as Head Mistress in charge of the said vacancy. Being aggrieved by that, the Appellant presented an application before the Director of School Education against the promotion. The Inspector of Girls Schools, Tuticorin, by an order dated 30/5/1988 disapproved the appointment of D. Jayaselvi and the same was confirmed by the Chief Educational Officer by an order dated 6/3/1989, dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant, observing that the Appellant was senior to the said Jayaselvi and further directed the Chief Educational Officer to advise the school authorities to fill up the post after proper selection of the candidates who are fully qualified. The Chief Educational Officer was also directed to fill up the post by selection. As even after that, the 5th Respondent Jayaselvi continued to hold the post of Headmistress, the Appellant herein filed W.P. No. 15235/89 praying the court to direct the authorities to implement the order of the Director of School Education. The school also filed W.P. No. 562 of 1990. Both the Writ Petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of the Court, who by a common order dated 22/3/1990, directed the School Committee to hold an interview for the purpose of selection of Headmistress. Thereafter, the School Committee held an interview in which the Appellant and two B.T. Assistants appeared for selection. One Malika Devi was appointed, however, her appointment was rejected by the Inspector of Schools on the ground that the appointment did not follow the proper procedure. By an order dated 7.11.1990, the Joint Director cancelled the appointment of Malika Devi and directed the School to consider the Appellant along with eligible P.G. Assistants for Headmistress and pass orders. Subsequently, by an Order dated 18/5/1991, the School appointed Jayaselvi as Headmistress and this was questioned by the Appellant herein. Ultimately, the Appellant''s appeal was allowed, observing that the School Committee committed a mistake as there was nothing to consider the case of Jayaselvi as against the Appellant. The School was then directed to appoint the Appellant as Headmistress within 15 days from the date of receipt of the orders. Being aggrieved by that Order, Jayaselvi filed W.P. No. 16077 of 1991, praying the Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus viz., to call for the records and quash the same and directed the authorities to approve her promotion as Headmistress from 13.5.1991 and for other reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.5.1993 wherein, the learned Single Judge held that the resolution did not specifically refer to the assessment of individual merits and ability of both incumbents and that the Joint Director did not advert to the superior claim of merit and ability of the Appellant than that of the 5th Respondent herein. Finally, the learned Single Judge held that there must be assessment of merit and ability and suitability of the Appellant to hold the post of Headmistress of the School and in this view of the matter, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the School Committee for consideration afresh. The 5th Respondent Jayaselvi questioning the correctness of the said order, filed W.A. No. 749/1993. A Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order of the learned single Judge by an order dated 08.07.1993. By an order dated 11.10.1993, the School appointed the 5th Respondent Smt. Jayaselvi, which according to the Appellant was contrary to the directions given by the High Court and the provisions of the Act.

Both the Writ Petitions viz., W.P. No. 20212/93 and W.P. No. 17550/1995 were resisted by the Respondent denying the various allegations/averments made against. The learned Single Judge, after elaborately considering the materials available on record, dismissed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 20212 of 1993. The other Writ Petition viz., W.P. No. 17550/1995, already stated, was also dismissed with a direction to the District Educational Officer to consider the case of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition viz., Jayaselvi in accordance with law and pass orders.

learned Counsel for the Appellant put forth three fold submissions before this Court viz.,

i] A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 15235/1989 by an order dated 22.3.1990, giving a direction to the School Committee to hold an interview for the purpose of selection of Headmistress, but however that direction has not been followed. Consequently, the selection of the 5th Respondent Jayaselvi has to fail.

ii] For the School Committee Meeting on 11.10.1993, the 5th Respondent was also invited and she also participated. When the Committee Meeting is for the specific purpose of selecting the Headmistress and the 5th Respondent being also one of the candidates, the transaction that took place on that day cannot be said to be valid and the participation of the 5th Respondent in the meeting vitiates the entire proceedings.

iii) The School Committee failed to evaluate the respective merits and demerits of the candidates as directed by the earlier orders of the High Court.

Let us proceed to consider the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

In W.P. No. 15235 of 1989, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an Order dated 22.3.1990, in the concluding paragraph, held as under:

Mr. Martin learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. 15235 of 1989 submits that the School Committee called upon his clients to appear for a written test for the purpose of selection of Headmistress. It is not necessary to hold any written test. Mr. Gandhi, Senior Counsel, for the School Management states that only an interview will be held and not a written test. The School Committee shall hold an interview for the purpose of selection of Headmistress. The Writ Petitions are ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

Thereafter, admittedly, the Management appointed one Mallika Devi as Headmistress, who is not a Post Graduate, but only a B.T. Assistant, of course, after conducting an interview. The Appellant moved the Joint Registrar, being aggrieved, who set aside the appointment of Mallika Devi, but however, again the 5th Respondent by name Jayaselvi was appointed and this time without even conducting an interview. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.10.1991, the Joint Director of School Education issued a direction to the School to appoint the Appellant as Headmistress and this was challenged by the Management by filing W.P. No. 16077/91. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 18.5.1993 and directed the School Committee to consider the selection afresh. It would be relevant to quote the operative portion of the Order, which reads thus:

In such a situation, there is no other go except to remit the matter back to the School Committee being the appointing authority for consideration afresh the question of selection and appointment of a suitable candidate to hold the position of the Headmistress of the fifth Respondent- - school in accordance with the Rules and in the light of the above observations.

It may be straightway pointed out that in the said Order, there is no whisper as to whether or not the interview has to be conducted, as directed originally. But the order positively reads that the selection and appointment to be in accordance with the Rule, and in the light of the above observations. The relevant Rule is Rule-15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which reads as under:

Rule -15(4) (i) Promotions shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.

(ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made in the following methods.

(i) promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school ;

(ii) if no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (i) as above ;

(a) appointment of other persons employed in that schools, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers:

(b) appointment of teachers from any other school ;

(c) direct recruitment...

As could be seen from the above, the Rules do not contemplate holding on interview, but of course, the same is not barred. The Order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16077/1991 was confirmed in W. A. No. 749 of 1993 by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 8.7.1993. The Division Bench held as under:

Therefore, we are of the view that the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and as such, it does not call for interference. Consequently, it follows that this Writ Appeal must fail. It is accordingly dismissed.

It has to be pointed out that in the said Writ Appeal, the present Appellant was the 6th Respondent. The judgment in the Writ Appeal only confirms the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16077/1991. The Order in the said Writ Petition does not direct the school management to conduct an interview. That apart, when the Appellant herein was a party in W.A. No. 749/1993 as 6th Respondent, nothing prevented the Appellant to persuade the Division Bench to give a clear direction that the interview must be held as directed by the learned Single Judge in the Order in W.P. No. 15235/1989 dated 22.3.1990. Or in other words, we are of the view that by virtue of the subsequent orders in W.P. No. 16077/1991 as confirmed in W.A. No. 749/1993, the earlier direction by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15235/ 1989 ceases to be operative, that too, when the relevant Rule does not contemplate holding an interview. In this view of the matter, the first submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant fails.

The next question is whether the transactions conducted by the School Committee on that day i.e., on 11.10.1993 has to be characterized as contrary to the Rules which would prompt this Court to declare the proceedings of the Committee as tainted with illegality and consequently invalid in law.

It is true that on 2.10.1993, a notice was sent with regard to the convening of the Meeting of the School Committee and one of the agenda found in the notice was selection of a candidate for the post of Headmistress. It is contended that the School should not have sent a notice to the 5th Respondent about the said meeting. We may straight away point out that we do not find any force in the said submission for two reasons viz., [i] that as per Rule-12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, the Headmistress is also one of the members and (ii) that on that day not only that subject but the other subjects were also in the agenda.

We carefully perused the minutes recorded for the meeting held on 11.10.1993, which would clearly show that the 5th Respondent was not asked to participate in the meeting and that thereafter, she left the meeting hall and only subsequently, the Committee took the agenda for the meeting.

learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that inasmuch as the 5th Respondent has signed the minutes, it can only be construed that she also participated in the meeting. We are of the view that this submission cannot be accepted for various reasons. Firstly, it is true that the Appellant has signed the minutes, but, it has to be noted that she has not signed after recording of the minutes. The signatures of the participants in the said meeting find a place only at the top of the proceedings. After the Committee Members gathered there, they signed the minutes and thereafter, the 5th Respondent was asked not to participate and she left the meeting hall. Even though a contention is raised that the recorded minutes are not correct and the same have to be rejected, we do not find any reason to do so, more particularly, when the Appellant has not attributed any mala fide to the other members of the Committee, which met on that day and transacted the business. That apart, we also find a rejoinder affidavit filed by S.M. Thangaraj, Secretary of the School in W.P. No. 20212 of 1993, setting out the happenings on that day minute to minute. We carefully perused the affidavit and we are not satisfied that in the circumstances of the case, the same can be safely accepted.

From the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the 5th Respondent though initially came to the Meeting Hall, left the hall and did not participate while the Committee took up for consideration the agenda relating to appointment of Headmistress.

Next it is contended that the Committee failed to evaluate the respective merits and demerits of the candidates viz., the Appellant and the 5th Respondent. Here again, we do not find any substance in this submission. We carefully, perused the minutes recorded and we find that the School Committee examined the service records of both the Appellant herein and the 5th Respondent as P.G. Assistants, results in the public examinations and honours secured by the School during the tenure of the 5th Respondent. The Committee, as could be gathered, had considered the merits of both the candidates, the Inspection report from 1985-86 to 1991-92 and the individual performance of the students in the various fields and other achievements of the students and cooperation of the teachers and it is only on the analysis of the entire statistical records, the Committee decided to select the 5th Respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the School Committee also took into account the entire service career of the candidates who had applied for the higher post. The Headmistress of the School occupies an unique position and she is the linchpin around and the school activities revolve around her and she should have full confidence of the teachers, pupils, school authorities and must have administrative control, managerial skill, financial control over the funds of the school and she must secure full and unstinted co-operation from teachers and pupils for the past performance of the school. Needless to mention, any deficiency on the part of the Headmistress would reflect not upon the individual members, but would reflect on the institution itself.

We perused the order of the learned Single Judge and we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has pointed out various reasons apart from that we have set out earlier, for his coming to the conclusion about which, we have already referred to. We are in entire agreement with the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge on all the issues.

In this view of the order, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. Consequently the connected C.M.P.S will stand closed.