B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J.: These two appeals, one by the educational institution and another by the candidate, who has been promoted to the post of a Principal, are directed against the order of the learned single Judge in granting stay of the promotion of the writ appellant in W.A. No.2393 of 2001 and also making it absolute by later order dated 19.10.2001.

2. The writ petition is still pending. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly, Mr.P. Jyothimani, learned counsel for the first respondent in both the appeals, who submits that the findings whatever in these writ appeals, be confined only to the disposal of the writ appeals, as it may affect the adjudication to be made by the learned single Judge in the writ petition. As such, we refrain ourselves from dealing on the merits of the claim for promotion. We are only dealing with the aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and as to whether there is irreparable injury in not granting stay as sought for by the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent herein.

3. The appellant in W.A. No.2387 of 2001 has been granted a minority status by a declaration granted by a decree dated 19.2.1988 by the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madras in A.S. No.275 of 1987. It is not disputed that the said decree had become final. As on date, the said decree has not been nullified. But Mr.P.Jyothimani, learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that in view of G.O.(Ms.) No.270, dated 17.6.1998, the decree, which has been granted on 19.2.1988, had become inoperative. Prima facie, we are unable to agree with the said submission as the Government has been a party and suffered a decree on 19.2.1988 and the said decree having become final, the Government is bound by the same unless there is a specific legislation that too, if it is not an affront to the above decree granted by the judicial authority. Then Mr.Jothimani takes us to the order of the Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Kartnataka and others, L.A. No.20 in WP(C) No.317 of 1993 dated 17.10.1994. It is not disputed that the said writ petition is still pending on the file of the Supreme Court. In the interim order passed on the above date, the Civil Court’s decree granting minority status to the respondents, who have been parties therein, that is respondents 2 to 6, has not taken cognisance of particular reference has been made to the said respondents and the said order does not operate in rem. In fact that position has been clarified by a learned single Judge of this Court in The Correspondent, St. Ignatius Higher Secondary School, Kurumbanai and others v. Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai and others, (1999)1 C.T.C. 121. It is not brought to our notice that this judgment of the learned single Judge has been overruled. As such, we find a prima facie case in favour of the appellant in W.A. No.2387 of 2001 that it still enjoys minority status as on date.

4. In so far as the balance of convenience is concerned, the first respondent is not promoted on regular basis and merely because stay is granted, he cannot be promoted. He has to wait till the adjudication is made in the writ petition. On the other hand, the writ appellant in W.A. No.2393 of 2001 has already been promoted by the Managing Committee and the Managing Committee has considered the candidature of six candidates, including that of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 having participated in the said selection process and having not been selected on the ground of not possessing comparative merit and ability to that of the writ appellant in W.A. No.2393 of 2001, cannot turn back and challenge the proceeding. Further the appellant in W.A. No.2393 of 2001 has taken charge on 1.10.2001 as the Principal of the College, while the writ petition was filed on 5.10.2001. What is more, the writ petitioner/ first respondent was fully aware of the fact that the writ appellant is working as th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document