G ANNAMALAI Vs. SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11. 10. 2002 made in W. P. No. 5439 of 1995, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows. (a)Appellant was working as Post Graduate Teacher (Tamil) and as Assistant Headmaster (PG grade) in the 4th respondent School. The 4th respondent School is a Private Recognised and Aided School. According to the appellant, the post of Headmaster became vacant in the 4th respondent School on 1. 6. 1985 and a request was made by the appellant to promote him as Headmaster since he was the senior-most Post Graduate Assistant. However, the 4th respondent management selected and promoted one Anthonysamy as Headmaster, against which the appellant filed appeal before the Director of School Education and on 5. 1. 1987 the appeal was allowed. The 4th respondent management and the said Anthonysamy challenged the said order of the Director of School Education dated 5. 1. 1987 before this Court in W. P. Nos. 581 and 630 of 1987 and this Court by order dated 12. 2. 1987, set aside the order of the Director of School Education dated 5. 1. 1987 and remitted the matter back to the Director of School Education with a direction to hear all the parties and decide the case on merits. (b)The Joint Director of School Education, who is the competent authority, by orders dated 26. 10. 1987 and 11. 11. 1987 gave a finding that the said Anthonysamy was not a qualified person to be promoted as Headmaster and directed the management to promote the petitioner as Headmaster. The said order of the Joint Director of School Education was challenged by the 4th respondent in W. P. No. 11863 of 1987 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition, against which the management and the said Anthonysamy filed W. A. Nos. 331 and 590 of 1988 respectively before this Court. At the time of final hearing, the writ appeals were withdrawn. The Division Bench, while permitting withdrawal of the writ appeals, directed the management and the said Anthonysamy to file revision before the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. (c)Thereafter revision was filed by the said Anthonysamy before the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. The Government, after hearing the revision, dismissed the same by G. O. Ms. No. 623 Education Department, dated 31. 5. 1991 and upheld the order of the Joint Director of School Education. (d)It is the case of the appellant that thereafter instead of promoting the appellant, one Rafia Begum was promoted as Headmistress and according to the appellant the said Rafia Begum is also unqualified to be promoted as Headmistress. Therefore the appellant preferred appeal before the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) and the Joint Director by order dated 8. 8. 1994 held that the said Rafia Begum is unqualified and cancelled the promotion order issued in her favour. The Joint Director ultimately directed the management to promote a fully qualified person as Headmistress. The said Rafia Begum filed a revision before the Government which was also rejected by G. O. Ms. No. 230 Education Department dated 22. 3. 1995. (e)According to the appellant, he being the seniormost Post Graduate Teacher, he was given additional charge as Headmaster whenever the Headmaster of the school went on leave. The grievance of the appellant is that the 4th respondent management has not filled up the Headmaster post from 1. 6. 1985 by a fully qualified person. (f)It is further stated that though the writ petition was filed in April 1995, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31. 8. 1995. The request of the appellant to re-employ him till the end of the academic year i. e. , till 31. 5. 1996 was also rejected and the said order was challenged by the appellant in a separate writ petition in W. P. No. 13392 of 1995, which was also dismissed by the learned single Judge against which W. A. No. 1226 of 2003 has been filed and we are dealing with the said writ appeal separately.

(3.) FIRST respondent herein, who is the third respondent in the writ petition filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that after allowing the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order of promotion given to Rafia Begum, a direction was given to the management to appoint fully qualified teacher as Headmaster in accordance with rules and no specific direction was given to appoint the appellant as Headmaster of the School and that the appellant having retired and having been relieved on 31. 8. 1995, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.