Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 809
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
A.Murugeswari - Appellant
Versus
The Director of School Education & Others - Respondents
W.P.No.4753 of 2005, W.P.M.P.No.5105 of 2005 & W.V.M.P.No.225 of 2005
Decided On : 23 March 2006
The appointing authority has the right to assess the merit and ability of candidates for appointments, and the educational authorities should not interfere with this process.
Headnote:
Appointment - Tamil P.G. Assistant - Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act - Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974 - Annexure III (III) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order confirming the rejection of her appointment as P.G. Assistant in Tamil by the educational authorities, citing her qualifications and the seniority of another candidate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the educational authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction by assessing the merit and ability of the candidates, which was the prerogative of the appointing authority. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority of the educational authorities to approve appointments and the assessment of merit and ability in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointing authority, not the educational authorities, had the right to assess the merit and ability of candidates for appointments. The impugned order was set aside as it opposed the principles of the Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. No costs were awarded, and connected motions were closed.
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Sivaji for the 5th respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 16.5.2005 confirming the order passed by the second third respondents dated 23.11.2004 and 16.03.2004 respectively directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner P.G. Assistant in Tamil.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined as a Record Clerk in the fourth respondent school on 1.7.1969. The fourth respondent school is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools, (Regulation) Act the rules made therein. She subsequently acquired B.Lit, (Tamil) qualification in 1982, M.A. (Tamil) in 1985 and B.Ed, in 1987. When a vacancy arose in Grade I Tamil Pandit which according to the petitioner is now redesignated as a School Assistant (Tamil), she was posted.
4. While he was working in tile said post, a vacancy in the P.G. Assistant Tamil arose in the fourth respondent-School. The 4th respondent has promoted film as a P.G. Assistant on 2.6.2003. The fourth respondent has forwarded he papers regarding the appointment of the petitioner as a P.G. Assistant for approval to tile third respondent. The third respondent refused to approve the petitioner's appointment and returned the papers on 16.3.2004. That refusal was oil the ground that the post of P.G. Assistant must be filled up by promotion according to tile seniority and there is one Chandran who is senior to the petitioner is available. It was against the said rejection order of the third respondent, the fourth respondent management, has filed an Appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent has rejected the Appeal on 23.11.2004 confirming the order of the third respondent. It was against the said order of the second respondent dated 23.11.2004, the petitioner filed an Appeal to the first respondent on 2.12.2004.
5. The contention of the petitioner who has filed Appeal before the first respondent was that the said Chandran who has been impleaded as a fifth respondent in this Writ Petition is not having both basic degree and master degree in the same subject namely Tamil. It was in those circumstances, the fourth respondent has appointed the petitioner since she was having Tamil qualification in basic and master degree and teaching classes in Tamil, while the fifth respondent is a science teacher and no way connected with the Tamil Department. That apart, as per the petitioner there is no provision for approval of appointment teacher when once the School Committee makes appointment by promotion. It is only tile qualifications which are forwarded to the educational authorities under Annexure-Ill to the Rules for the purpose of approval of qualification.
6. That apart, the appointment of petitioner as a P.G. Assistant in Tamil 16.3.2004 has not been objected to by anybody including the fifth respondent. Since the Appeal before the first respondent was not disposed of, the petitioner had to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.39415 of 2004 wherein a direction was given to the first respondent to consider the Appeal and pass orders. When the respondents 1 to 3 were pressuring the fourth respondent to revert the petitioner as School Assistant (Tamil). The petitioner filed in W.P.No.4266 of 2005 and this Court by an order dated 10.2.2005 while disposing the said Writ Petition has directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's Appeal dated 2.12.2004 within six weeks and also directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to insist for reversion of the petitioner. Now the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 16.5.2005 rejecting the Appeal stating that the persons who have both basic degree and master degree in the said subject could be preferred only if the merit and ability are approximately equal.
7. The learned Se
