NEHRU MIDDLE SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a Middle School having classes from I to VIII. The school was started in the year 1951. It was receiving aid from the Government. The school was having a sanctioned post of Headmistress. One Arumugam was serving as the Headmaster of the school. He retired from service with effect from 31.03.2010. By proceedings bearing Moo.Mu.No.2366/A3/2010 dated 21.04.2010, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai permitted the school management to fill up the resulting vacancy. It was made clear that the school management will have to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.

(2.) The teachers serving in the writ petitioner's school declined the opportunity of being considered for being promoted to the post of Headmistress. Therefore, the school management resorted to recruitment from the open market. The management selected one Tmt.Flora Mary and she has been working as Headmistress since 19.05.2010. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai by communication dated 07.01.2011 declined to approve the said appointment. Hence, the petitioner filed WP(MD)No.4269 of 2011. By order dated 06.12.2013, this Court gave one more opportunity to the management to make a further representation to the competent authority. The management was permitted to produce adequate documents in support of their contention that the requirements of the department have been complied with. The authority was directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Since the approval issue was dragged on, the management filed WP(MD)No.2451 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 came to be passed declining to approve the appointment of Mrs.Flora Mary as the Headmistress. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on either side. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned Special Government Pleader reiterated all the contentions set out therein. The primary reason for declining to grant approval for the appointment of Mrs.Flora Mary is that she does not have five years teaching experience. This objection may not hold water because in similar cases, a direction was given for granting approval with a condition that the selected candidate shall draw salary payable to the B.T.Assistant for five years and thereafter be entitled to salary as Headmistress. The petitioner has enclosed a copy of the order dated 29.04.2015 in WA(MD)No.1119 of 2014. In the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, quite a few earlier orders have been cited and referred to. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the first objection set out in the impugned order will have to be overruled.