AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.7.2001 passed by the second respondent wherein the
second respondent had disposed the order relating to promotion of the petitioner as headmistress and has directed for promotion of the sixth
respondent as headmistress.
The facts giving rise to present the writ petition are as follows:-
Sri T.K.D. Girls Higher Secondary School, Courtallam in Nellai District is a private aided school and is governed by the Tamilnadu Private
Schools Regulation Act. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose on 31.5.1995 due to retirement of the incumbent and the present sixth
respondent was allowed to continue as the incharge Headmistress. Subsequently, the School Committee conducted a regular selection and held an
interview for the purpose and thereafter selected the present petitioner for the post of Headmistress. A proposal was sent to the District
Educational Officer for approval. Since the District Educational Officer did not pass any orders, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.9395 of 1997
which was disposed on 29.6.1997 with a direction to the District Educational Officer to consider the proposal. Subsequently by an order dated
31.7.1997, the District Educational Officer refused to grant approval. The petitioner filed appeal before the Joint Director (Higher Secondary),
who rejected the appeal. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.10516 of 1998. In the meantime, the sixth respondent
had also filed W.P.No.6663 of 1997 against the order promoting the present petitioner-headmistress and she had also filed W.P.No.17041 of
1995 seeking to quash the memorandum of charges levelled against her. Against the interim order passed in the latter writ petition, the management
had filed Writ Appeal No.411 of 1996 and the present petitioner had filed Writ Appeal No.1543 of 1999 against the order refusing to grant
interim stay in the writ petition filed by her. The various Writ Appeals were disposed on 30.1.2001, wherein the Division Bench observed that the
Appellate Authority should consider the question of selection of the present petitioner and non-selection of the present sixth respondent and
thereafter the Education Department is to consider the question of granting or refusing the approval. The Appellate Authority after going through
the proceedings of the Selection Committee, disapproved the proposal to appoint the petitioner as Headmistress and on the other hand, directed
that the sixth respondent should be appointed as the Headmistress. The Appellate Authority has observed that the merit of the present petitioner
and the sixth respondent appear to be more or less the same and the sixth respondent being senior should have been promoted, keeping in view of
the provisions contained in Rule 15(4) of the Tamilnadu Private Schools Regulation Rules.
There is no dispute that selection of Headmistress is to be made on the basis of merit, but if merit is found to be equal then the teacher, who is
senior, is to be appointed as per Rule 15(4).
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Selection Committee having followed a particular procedure of finding
out the merit of the candidates, the Appellate Authority could not have substituted its own selection process and come to a different conclusion. It
has also been contended that the Appellate Authority erroneously proceeded on the assumption that marks had not been awarded in each
category.
There is no doubt that the question of selection of Headmistress in accordance with Rule 15(4) is vested with the School Committee and
ordinarily in the absence of arbitrariness in such orders, the function of the District Educational Officer is to approve the same. Even though the
power of approval vested with the District Educational Officer, the power has to be exercised judiciously and not in arbitrary matter and the
District Educational Officer ordinarily should not refuse to accord promotion unless it is found that the order of the Committee is arbitrary. The
Joint Director is constituted the Appellate Authority over the orders passed by the District Educational Officer relating to grant or refusal to grant
approval. Therefore, the ambit of jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority is the same as that of the District Educational Officer. Such authorities are
not constituted as Appellate Authorities as such, over the orders of the School Committee or the Selection Committee. However, they are vested
with the power to see that the School Committee or the Selection Committee does not act arbitrarily. The submission of the counsel for the
petitioner to the effect that the Appellate Authority in this case has substituted his own method for the method adopted by the Selection Committee
has got some force.
The Selection Committee, purported to examine the merit of the candidates on several heads such as personality, general and technical
knowledge, answering of questions before the interviewers of the Committee, additional qualifications, the manner and behaviour before the
interviewer, general knowledge and academic results in subjects of candidates in previous years and pendancy of disciplinary proceedings.
However, the copies of the papers produced by the Managing Committee showing the marks obtained by different candidates do not give any
details as rightly pointed out by the Appellate Authority. Even though, it has been indicated in the counter affidavits of management as well as in the
writ petition, that the various aspects which have been extracted earlier were taken to consider while awarding marks, there is no
contemporaneous document to support such assertion and the marks appear to have been awarded in a general manner. The observation of the
Appellate Authority therefore does not appear to be baseless and that part of the order relating to the disapproval of the selection of the petitioner
cannot be said to be arbitrary.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon decisions of Supreme Court in Kiran Gupta & Ors. etc. etc. vs. State of U.P.
& Ors. etc. (2000 (6) Supreme 555) wherein it has been indicated that it may not be necessary to award mark in each item. The aforesaid
Supreme Court decision was in the context of challenge to the respondent providing for selection on the basis of performance in the interview and
is distinguishable from in the present case.
The question, however, remains regarding the direction of Appellate Authority to promote the sixth respondent Rule 15(4) contemplates that
promotion to the post of Headmaster should be on the basis of merit and where merit is equal, the person who is senior should be preferred. In the
present case, the Appellate Authority has purported to ascertain the relative merits of the candidates by referring to the results in the examinations
in various subjects taught by the petitioner and the sixth respondent. The merit which has to be adjudged cannot be confined to the question of
results of the students in the relevant subjects. The selection is for the post of Headmaster which has got various administrative functions, apart
from the function of teaching. While considering the question of merit for the purpose of planning selection of Headmaster, various other aspects
are to be taken into account and not merely the proficiency in the subject taught by the particular teacher. In the present case, the Appellate
Authority has merely confined his attention to the results of the students in the relevant subjects. However, since the question of appointing
Headmaster was involved, administrative ability as well as other relevant circumstances are also to be taken into account. The direction given by
the Appellate Authority for appointing the sixth respondent therefore cannot be sustained.
As already indicated, the question of selection of Headmaster is essentially a matter which is to be left to the School Committee. In the present
case, the initial process of selection undertaken by the School Committee had been found fault with on the earlier occasion by the Educational
Officer as well as by the Appellate Authority and on the subsequent occasion, by the Appellate Authority. Keeping in view of the various facts and
circumstances of the case, I think it is necessary in the present case to give a direction to the School Committee to undertake afresh the process of
selection of Headmaster by considering the cases of all eligible teachers. This process may be completed by the School within a period of two
months from the date of communication of the order and the question of approval should be considered by the relevant authority within a period of
two months from the date of communication of the selection by the School Committee. Subject to the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP Nos.37 of 2002 and 22160 of 2001 are closed.