D R ADISON Vs. D RAJESWARI JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant in both the appeals. He filed the suit for (a) declaration that the promotion of D8 as Head Master of D4 School vide orders dated 28-4-1978, is illegal; and (b) mandatory injunction against the 10th defendant to appoint the plaintiff as Head Master of the School with effect from 13-4-1976 with all consequential benefits and perquisites and also for payment to Rs.3,138-91 ps., to the plaintiff. The school is a minority educational institution. The plaintiff joined the said school as B.Ed. Assistant on 10-7-1956 and he worked in the school continuously since then, he was the senior most person among the staff members of the school and so he became eligible for promotion to the post of Head Master of the School, which fell vacant on 9-4-1976. Insofar as the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Head Master is concerned, one must be working as B.Ed. Assistant with seven years experience as such and one must also pass the Accounts Test for Head Masters. The case of the plaintiff is that having possessed all the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of Head Master, he filed a representation to the management of the school seeking his promotion to the post of Head Master of the School. But, the management completely overlooking his qualifications and seniority in the school, appointed the 8th defendant, who was working in another school by that time. The contention of the plaintiff is that 8th defendant having not passed the Accounts Test for Head Masters, which is one of the requisite qualifications for the said post, is not at all qualified to hold the post of Head Master of the School. It is, therefore, contended that since the very promotion of D8, who is an unqualified person, is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and consequently since he (plaintiff) is fully qualified to hold the post of Head Master, the plaintiff sought mandatory injunction against the Defendant No. 10 to appoint him as Head Master of the School.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 3 contended that the promotion to the post of Head Master is the internal administration of the School and the plaintiff is not entitled to question the order of promotion of the 8th defendant.

(3.) The 4th defendant-School contended that plaintiff is not the senior most person, but the 6th defendant is the senior most person in the school and, therefore, the plaintiff is not at all entitled for the promotion.