V REVATHI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION; DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER; CORRESPONDENT AND SECRETARY; S VENKATADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner further stated that in the appointment for the post of Headmaster, the third respondent has to consider the merit and ability and seniority of the qualified persons working in the same school, for promotion. The question of considering the merit and ability and seniority can be made by way of two methods, viz., (i) By going through the records and qualification and (2) By conducting interview. In the instant case, the third respondent did not conduct any interview. Further, the third respondent/Management school had not verified the qualifications and experience of the fourth respondent and the qualifications and experience of the petitioner. The fourth respondent, viz. Mr.S.Venkatadri is junior to her and she possesses a B.Sc., M.Ed., Degree, whereas, she has got a B.Lit (Tamil), B.Ed., M.A. and M.Ed., degree. Besides that she has got 19 years of teaching experience and the fourth respondent has got only 10 years experience. As such, the fourth respondent cannot be considered as a better qualified candidate for the said promotion.

(3.) The petitioner further stated that against the said promotion of the fourth respondent, she made an appeal before the first respondent herein / Joint Director of School Education, Chennai-6, on 21.06.2006. As the first respondent had not decided her Department appeal, she has been advised to file a writ petition. Accordingly, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7449 of 2001, before this Court and this Court was pleased to direct the first respondent to dispose of the Department appeal within a period of two months, by its order dated 17.04.2001. As per this Court's direction, the said appeal has been disposed of and the second respondent, viz., the District Educational Officer, Chennai-2 has passed the order and approved the appointment of the fourth respondent as Headmaster with effect from 01.06.2000. Against this order, she filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.9808 of 2001 and this Court was pleased to issue notice and the said writ petition is pending. Under the circumstances, the first respondent has passed the impugned order on appeal dated 14.09.2002 and rejected the same. As such, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is arbitrary and illegal and hence, the writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the first respondent / Joint Director of School Education, dated 14.09.2002.