The decision of a Selection Committee must contain reasons for the selection, especially when the selection is made on the ground of merit and ability.

K.A.Swami, CJ.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 15. 1993 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.16097 of 1991. Learned single Judge has quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and the decision of the Selection Committee and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant and the 6th respondent were considered for filling up of a post of Headmistress in the 5th respondent School. The Selection Committee selected the appellant. Consequently, the 6th respondent challenged the order of the Selection Committee before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellate Authority set aside the decision of the Selection Committee and directed that the 6th respondent herein should be appointed as Headmistress of the 5th respondent School. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant herein approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has not only found fault with the decision of the Selection Committee, but has also held that the Appellate Authority is not justified in directing the School Committee to select the 6th respondent herein. Accordingly, learned single Judge has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and also the decision of the Selection Committee and has remitted the matter to the Selection Committee for fresh consideration.

3. It is contended before us that learned single Judge is not justified in remitting the matter to the Selection Committee on the ground that the decision of the Selection Committee is devoid of reasons, therefore it is not valid in law. Reliance is placed on sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also a decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Science v. Dr. K. .Kalyanaraman, A.I.R. 1992 S. C. 1806: 1992 Lab.I.C. 1800: (1992)2 S.C.C. 481. It is submitted that as the Selection Committee while making selection neither acts as a judicial authority nor a quasi judicial authority, it is not required to give any reasons for its decision. It is further submitted that as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 15of the Rules, promotion has to be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. The Selection Committee has in its order stated that the appellant is superior both on merit and ability to that of the 6th respondent and therefore, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied. Hence, the learned single Judge ought not have interfered with the decision of the Selection Committee.

4. We have taken through the decision of the Selection Committee, which is produced at page 3 of the typed set of records of the writ appeal. Though the decision is in Tamil, my learned brother on going through the same points out that the decision contains nothing but the wordings contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules. We must point out that though the Selection Committee is not required to pass the order based on cogent reasons as is done in the court of law, nevertheless the records of the Selection Committee must show on what basis, it has come to the conclusion that between the two candidates, the one selected is superior both on merit and ability. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K.Kalyanaraman, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1806:1992 Lab.I.C. 1800: (1992)2 S.C.C. 461 is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not state that the records of the Selection Committee need not contain even the basis on which the selection is made. What is stated in that decision is that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory, that it is purely administrative. It is also further