P VAJRAVELU Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was assistant headmaster in senior grade. On account of denial of promotion to the post of headmaster, he moved the competent authority under Rule 15(4) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules) and the authority constituted under the said Rule by a proceeding, dated 17 April 2006, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and held that the petitioner had full qualification in terms of Rule 15(4) of the Rules for holding the post of headmaster. It was further held that the petitioner alone is qualified to become headmaster. However, the second respondent school, in spite of receipt of the order had not chosen to challenge the same. Even one T. Selvapandy, who is presently holding the post of headmaster has not challenged the said order. Under such circumstances, after making representations, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the management to implement the order passed by the first respondent competent authority.

(2.) TODAY , when the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri D. Vijay, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that against the order of first respondent, they have filed revision under S.45 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act. 1973 (for short the Act) to the Director of School Education and the same is pending. He fairly concedes that no interim order has been granted by the said authority. However, when it is brought to the knowledge of the learned counsel for the second respondent, he states that even though the Director of School Education is not the authority to revise the order of the first respondent, he may be permitted to avail the remedy under S.45 of the Act and therefore seeks permission to move the revisional authority and during the pendency, he requested this Court not to grant any direction. Even the submission that the second respondent has remedy under S.45 of the Act is only illusory because revision under S.45 of the Act is only to the authorities constituted under S.41 of the Act and in the present case, the order has been passed under Rule 15(4A) of the Rules by the first respondent and he has been obviously the authority under the Act. In any event, it is for the second respondent to challenge the order in the manner known to law. The second respondent has not complied with the order of the first respondent, dated 17 April 2006, nearly for one year an no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the order has not been implemented so far.