A T PERIASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W. P. No. 20275 of 1999 dated 22-12-1999.

(2.) THE appellant was appointed in the fifth respondent school as an Headmaster on 22-6-1995 and the said appointment was approved by the competent District Educational Officer. Later on, the approval was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed after the fifth respondent school received the names of the eligible candidates from the employment exchange. Since the challenge to the said order was unsuccessful, the appellant is before us.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appointment to the post of a Teacher or Headmaster in a private school is governed by Rule 15 (4) (i) and (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The said rule came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (D. Murugesan, J.) was a party, in Nehru Memorial College v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2003 WLR 31), wherein the Division Bench, after considering the scope of the said rule vis--vis Rules 15 (4) (i), 15 (4) (ii) of Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, in paragraph 25, held as follows: "learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the impugned order is not inconsistent with the Rules as they are supplement to the Rules. While Rule 15 (4) (i) and 15 (4) (ii) of 'the School Rules' enable the School Committee to follow a particular mode of recruitment, including promotion and by direct recruitment, by the impugned proceedings the very right of the School Committee to select the best of the candidates in the manner prescribed under the Rule is taken away. Hence, the impugned proceedings cannot be considered as of supplementing the Rules. For the above reasons, we are unable to agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. " the said judgment was rendered by following the judgment of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A. P. v. K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao and others (1996 [6] SCC 216) wherein the Apex Court held that even if the rule provides for recruitment from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for selection of best among the candidates, it could be permissible to call for applications from the public, inclusive of the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. The order of withdrawal of the approval granted was only on the basis that the appellant's name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court, the said order cannot be sustained and consequently, impugned order of the learned single Judge also cannot be sustained.