V.PANCHAVARNAM Vs. K.BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is against the order passed by the third respondent, dated 26.9.2003 and consequently, for a direction to second respondent to promote the petitioner as B. Ed. Grade Headmaster. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Physical Education Teacher at the second respondent school on 16.10.1973. Thereafter, the petitioner passed B.A. degree in the year 1992, M.A. degree in the year 1993 and B.Ed degree in the year 1995. Thus, the petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Headmaster of middle school. The petitioner was having 29 years of experience and he was the senior most teacher in the second respondent school. On 31.3.2003, the Headmaster post at the second respondent school became vacant, due to the retirement of one A. Manickam. Even before such vacancy arose, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 24.1.2003 for promoting him to the post of Headmaster. The Educational Authorities had also granted promotion to the second respondent school to fill up the said vacancy. Instead of promoting the petitioner by following the Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974, the second respondent school resorted to fill up the said post by direct recruitment. An intimation was sent to the petitioner by the second respondent on 23.4.2003, calling upon him to participate in the interview. Both oral and written test were conducted. The first respondent also participated in the interview along with the petitioner and others. The petitioner on the very same day gave further representation to the second and third respondent requesting them to promote him as Headmaster. However, without considering the petitioner's representation and in violation of the said Rule 15(4), the second respondent appointed the first respondent as Headmaster on 24.4.2003. Thereafter, the appointment of the first respondent also was approved by the third respondent on 26.9.2003. Aggrieved against the said order of approval, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit and stated that a vacancy arose to the post of Headmaster on 1.3.2003. Since the post of Headmaster is a sensitive one requiring merit and ability including administrative experience, the management decided to fill up the said post on direct recruitment as there were no suitable candidates available in the school. The third respondent granted permission to fill up the said post through his proceedings, dated 1.4.2003. A selection committee comprising of two educationalists was formed and the school requested the District Employment Officer to sponsor suitable candidate. Parallely the school also advertised in the notice board. Consequently, four candidates including the petitioner and the first respondent participated in the selection process. The petitioner got total 32 marks and the first respondent got total 96 marks. Since, the first respondent scored highest marks among the candidates who participated and since he was already working as a Headmaster of another private school, which produced 100% result consecutively in public examination, the selection committee recommended his name for appointment to the post of Headmaster. Accordingly, the school committee deliberated the issue and consequently decided to appoint the first respondent as Headmaster. Thereafter, by an order, dated 23.4.2003, the first respondent was appointed to the said post.

(3.) It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the selection was made purely based on merit and ability without any prejudice or favour and it was done purely on the recommendation of the selection committee. The first respondent was more meritorious than the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had indulged in various misconducts, for which, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. When he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 he was denied re-employment on the ground that his conduct was not good. Aggrieved against such denial of the re-employment, the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold that the decision of the management was right. The petitioner was also placed under suspension and in the meanwhile as he attained the age of superannuation, the management took a lenient view and allowed him to retire and he also got his accounts settled. The petitioner was not considered to the post of Headmaster only because he lacked merit, ability and good conduct. Further the petitioner had not challenged the appointment of the first respondent and there is no violation of Rule 15(4) as contended by him. On the other hand, the Rule 15(4) was duly followed.