B THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by a Selection Grade P.G. Assistant in the second respondent School. According to him, he possesses M.A.,M.Ed.qualification and he was initially appointed on 1.12.1972 as a B.T.Assistant. He was promoted as P.G.Assistant on 7.12.1984 and he continues to hold the post of P.G.Assistant. The second respondent school is an aided private institution governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, (hereinafter called "the Act"). On 30.6.1994, the post of Headmaster of the School s fell vacant due to the superannuation of the previous incumbent. He was fully qualified for the said post. He applied for the said post. Though the post fell vacant on 30.6.1994, no process was initiated for filling up the vacancy. All of a sudden a meeting of the School Committee was called for on 24.3.1995 to consider the appointment of Headmaster. The School Committee which was duly constituted met on 24.3.1995 and resolved to constitute a sub-Committee to interview the three candidates who had applied for the post of Head Master. The School Committee had directed the Sub-committee to recommend the appointment of Headmaster on the basis of merit and ability of the candidates. The candidates were initially informed that an interview would be conducted on 7.4.1995 and subsequently it was cancelled and that they were called to appear on 17.4.1995 for verification of the original certificates. On 17.4.1995 when he appeard before the Sub-Committee and produced the certificates, no interview was conducted nor any question was put to him. The Sub-Committee consisted of only one person namely, P.A. to the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, who was not a member of the School Committee. Therefore, it was not a properly constituted School Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, the second respondent had appointed the fourth respondent on his own accord without even placing the recommendations of the Sub-Committee before the entire School Committee. Therefore, the entire action of the respondents in appointing the fourth respondent was contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Though the petitioner had forwarded representations there was no proper response from the respondents. The petitioner would further state that although Rule 15(4A) provides a remedy by way of appeal, the same was not efficacious for the reasons that the impugned order was passed in violation of the Rules and that the Appellate Authority was subordinate in service to the first respondent.

(2.) In the counter of the first respondent, it is contended that the fourth respondent was a directly appointed P.G.Assistant with effect from 21.10.1990 with total service of 13 years and the fifth respondent was also appointed as P.G.Assistant on 9.2.1983 with total service of 11 years. The petitioner was promoted as P.G.Assistant only on 7.12.1984 with a total service of nine years and as such the petitioner was the junior-most among the three candidates and the fourth respondent,who was senior-most among the three candidates, was selected. The constitution of the Sub-Committee was quite legal consisting of two persons namely, P.A. to the District Collector, P.G.Assistant representing the School Committee and third one P.A. to the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur. Though the last one was not one of the members of the School Committee, he was brought into Sub-Committee so as to verify and clarify different Rules and proceedings of the Education Department. An interview was conducted and questions were put to all the candidates and certificates of each candidate were duly scrutinised. It was not correct to state that the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was not placed before the School Committee. Following the recommendations, the same was submitted to the School Committee and orders were obtained by circulation. The selection report was also circulated among the members of the School Committee for their acceptance and the same was approved by the majority of the members of the School Committee. Only on the approval by the School Committee, orders appointing the fourth respondent were issued. Therefore, the procedure of appointment was fully satisfied by the Rules and Regulations.

(3.) In the counter, reasons have also been given for choosing the fourth respondent which are as follows:-