B DEVASHANTHINI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order dated 5.9.2008 in W.P. No. 27117 of 2004 where by and where under, the request made by the appellant, to re-fix the seniority and to consider her for promotion to the post of "Headmistress" of St. Marys Higher Secondary School, Melpalai, was rejected. The Relevant Facts:

(2.) THE appellant" was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in English in the sixth respondent institution, as per proceedings dated 3.8.1979. THE seventh respondent was also appointed in the said institution as teacher in Botany, as per proceedings dated 25.9.1980. THE appellant as well as seventh respondent acquired additional qualification from Madurai Kamaraj University. THE University awarded a degree in Bachelor of Education, on the basis of the results published on 12.1.1982. Even though the appellant was senior to the seventh respondent, she was regularised only with effect from 25.10.1981 and her junior was regularised with effect from 24.10.1981. THE appellant claimed reguiarisation with effect from 3.8.1979 and she made series of representations before the sixth respondent.

(3.) THE Corporate Manager of the sixth respondent institution filed a counter in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit-filed in support of the writ petition. According to the sixth respondent, the appellant and the seventh respondent, took their B.Ed.Degree examinations on 24.10.1981 and 23.10.1981 respectively and as such, their services were reoularised with effect from the date of their final examinations viz., 25.10.1981 and 24.10.1981. THE contention regarding appointment of an outside teacher as "Headmaster" of the institution was justified on the ground that the Managing Committee was of the opihion that the eighth respondent was the most suitable candidate for the post. It was further stated that the appellant was also considered for the said post. However, the Committee felt that some more candidates should also be considered in the best interest of the School and it was only in such circumstances, the eighth respondent, who was working in another institution under the same corporate management, was considered and ultimately he was appointed. THE eighth respondent took charge of the post on 1.6.2001. His appointment was also approved by the District Educational Officer. THE eighth respondent has also taken up a substantial contention that it is the prerogative of the minority institution to choose a qualified person of their choice as "Headmaster". THE Judgment of the Judge