N SUBRAMANIAN Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner is working in the 3rd respondent School. The post of Head Master became vacant in the 3rd respondent school in the year 2006 and that was not filled up by the management for the reasons best known to them. Nevertheless, the 3rd respondent made the 4th respondent as the Head Master in- charge. The 4th respondent was also acting as Secretary of the School Committee and hence, the first respondent initiated proceedings, dated 10.10.2008 and withdrew the recognition or approval granted in favour of the 4th respondent from acting as Secretary and further directed payment on the ground that she is employed in the School as Secondary Grade Assistant and an employed teacher cannot be a Secretary of the School Committee. The 3rd respondent challenged the said proceedings in W.P.(MD)No.9279 of 2008. The 2nd respondent also directed the 3rd respondent to appoint a senior most teacher in that School to act as Head Master to receive grant in aid from the Government, by his proceedings dated 13.10.2008 and till such time, grant in aid shall be paid directly to the teacher. That proceeding was challenged in W,P.(MD)No.9280 of 2008. The 3rd respondent obtained interim orders and on the basis of the interim orders, the 4th respondent is acting as Head Master in-charge and also acting as Secretary of the School Committee. Meanwhile, the first respondent passed an order, dated 21.07.2009 directing the 3rd respondent to give promotion to the petitioner for the post of Head Master. That was challenged by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.7585 of 2009 and this Court set aside the said order holding that under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, the School Committee is the competent authority to appoint teachers and to give promotions and therefore, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such order. It was also made clear in that order that the 4th respondent herein shall continue as Head Master in-charge till a new Head Master was selected by the School Committee. Though, the petitioner herein filed W.A.(MD)No.566 of 2009 challenging the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7585 of 2009, later it was withdrawn, as Selection Committee was constituted by the management.

(3.) The 3rd respondent constituted a Selection Committee and it met on 27.11.2009 and in that said meeting, comparative evaluation of eligible candidates were considered and the Selection Committee selected the 4th respondent as Head Master of the institution. It is stated by the petitioner that the selection of the 4th respondent as Head Master is bad in law and the petitioner ought to have been selected as he is the senior most person employed in the School. It is further stated that the School Committee which selected the 4th respondent consists of not only the 4th respondent, but also the elder brother of her husband and Mr.Kailamoorthy, his husband's cousin and the husband of the 4th respondent is also a member of the School Committee, who is also working as teacher in the same School and another member Vijaya Lakshmi,who is a close relative of the 4th respondent and therefore, there is an element of bias against the petitioner in the constitution of the School Committee and as a senior most teacher, the petitioner ought to have been selected and further the selection of the 4th respondent is also against G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 05.07.2001 and therefore, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the selection proceedings of the School Committee.