K NAGARANI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION; DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER; SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, P T LEE CHENGALVARAYA NAICKER HIGH SCHOOL; D PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a science graduate teacher in the third respondent school on temporary basis in 1995. The Assistant Director, Professional & Executive Employment Office, addressed a letter dated 30.5.1998 to the Secretary, P.T. Lee Chengalavaraya Naicker Trust, to call for candidates for the vacancies to the post of B.T. Assistant Science (Chemistry) on Open Competition. Several names including the appellant's name were found in the list. The appellant was appointed as B.Sc., B.Ed., Maths Teacher by proceedings No. P.T.Lee CNT/A/768/98 dated 8.9.98. The District Educational Officer addressed a letter to the correspondent of the third respondent school that on the proposals sent by the third respondent school for approval of the appointment of the appellant, no approval will be given since the proposals sent by the school and rejected by the office on 9.7.99 had not been re-submitted. Thereafter, the appellant herself made a request on 3.1.2000 to consider her case sympathetically and appoint her permanently as Physics graduate teacher. Then, she filed the present writ petition for a mandamus to direct the third respondent to submit the proposal dated 26.10.98 to the second respondent to enable the second respondent to approve the appointment and direct the second respondent to approve the appointment.

(2.) The secretary of the third respondent school filed a counter stating that Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974 must be followed in the appointment of the teacher and that by mistake, the committee of management, without considering the Rule 15(4)(ii)(i), adopted the procedure of Rule 15(4)(ii)(ii)(c) by calling for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange. The counter also referred to a letter dated 9.7.99 wherein the District Educational Officer had pointed out that there were eligible candidates to be appointed by way of promotion under Rule 15(4)(ii)(i) of the Rules. It is also averred in the counter that the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant since she has studied in Telugu Medium.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Judge found that Rule 15(4) makes it clear how the appointment has to be made and that as a matter of priority, the post is to be filled up by promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school and thereafter, if no such person is available, to follow the other directions as laid down in the Rule. Respondent No. 4 is one of the secondary grade teachers, who are in the employment of the school and there is nothing on record to show that they had been found unsuitable, in which event alone the next option would be available for the school while deciding the person to be appointed. Rule 15(4) reads as follows: