V. KANICKAI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the appointment of fifth respondent and consequently, to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as P.G.Assistant (Tamil) and confer all the consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner is qualified in M.A.(Tamil) and she also had B.Ed Degree. She had joined as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) in the fourth respondent management school on 24.9.1979 and posted to various schools under the control of the fourth respondent. When a post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) fell vacant in the fourth respondent management school due to retirement of an incumbent, one Tmt. Xavier on 31.5.2007, the petitioner working in the same school made a representation to the management requesting the management to promote her as P.G.Assistant Teacher in Tamil on 11.4.2007. She also claims to be the senior most B.T.Assistant Teacher in Tamil and she is having all qualifications required for appointment to the post and there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against her, and that apart, it is also her case, she also belongs to Christian minority community.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has stated that the fourth respondent is owning and administering 120 educational institutions in the District of Sivagangai and Ramnad and all the institutions are the Christian minority educational institutions as per the terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and one among the said institutions, is the Sacred Heart's Higher Secondary School. It is also stated that the Schools under the control of the fourth respondent, which were originally under the Madurai Arch Diocese before bifurcation, were recognised as minority institutions in terms of Article 30 of the Constitution of India in the order of the High Court, Madras in W.P.No.590 of 1975 dated 24.9.1976. Even after bifurcation in 1987, the minority status of the fourth respondent institution continues. While admitting that the petitioner was working as B.T.Assistant Teacher in Tamil in the fourth respondent school, when a Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil fell vacant on 1.6.2007 due to retirement of superannuation of the then incumbent, Tmt.S.Xavier on 31.5.2007, it is stated that the fifth respondent has been appointed in the said vacancy on 8.6.2007. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent management has considered the eligible candidates available in its school including the writ petitioner as well as the teachers working in other schools under the Diocese to fill up the said vacancy. After over all assessment of the candidates, based on merit and ability, the fifth respondent was found to be suitable and hence appointed her as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil with effect from 8.6.2007. It is stated that the fifth respondent has been working in the school ever since the date of her appointment. It is also stated that the fifth respondent was working in another school for 7 years under the same Diocese in Karaikudi and she is fully qualified for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil and she also possess B.Lit (Tamil), M.A.(Tamil) and B.Ed Degree. It is also stated that the Education Department has approved the appointment of the fifth respondent as it is seen in the proceedings of the third respondent dated 11.10.2007. The comparison of qualifications between the petitioner and the fifth respondent is also explained by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit to the effect that while the fifth respondent has passed B.Lit Degree in First Class in 1992, M.A., First Class in 2001, and B.Ed, First Class in 1993, the petitioner has passed her B.Lit Degree, III Class in 1977, M.A., II Class in 1990 and B.Ed., II Class in 1986 and it is also stated that while the fifth respondent has done her B.Ed Degree in the regular course, the writ petitioner has done the same through Correspondence Course. Therefore, according to the fourth respondent, on over all assessment of the qualifications between the petitioner and the fifth respondent and other qualified persons, the management has found the fifth respondent is more suitable and more meritorious candidate than the petitioner and therefore, the appointment of the fifth respondent cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. Further, it is the case of the fourth respondent that the institution being a minority institution, Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules 1974 and the method of promotion is not applicable to it.