Management has absolute discretion in appointment of teachers.

P.K. Misra, J.

First Appellant, namely, Eka Ratchagar Sabai Higher Secondary School, is a religious minority aided school. First respondent joined such school on 7. 1982 as Tamil Pandit, which was in B.T. Assistant Cadre. Subsequently, the High School was upgraded as Higher Secondary School. In 2001, on retirement of the Headmaster, Mrs. Patti Jeeva Malar, who was working as a Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil, was appointed as Headmistress with effect from 6. 2001. The dispute in the present appeal relates to filling up of consequential vacancy in the post of P.G. Assistant in Tamil. At that stage, Appellant No.2 was appointed by direct recruitment as P.G. Assistant in Tamil. According to the case of Respondent No.1, such appointment of Appellant No.2 as P.G. Assistant in Tamil is in violation of Rule 15(4)(ii)(i) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. 1.1 Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.11120 of 2001 seeking for a direction to promote her as P.G. Assistant in Tamil. The main contention raised in the writ petition was to the effect that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 15(4), the school authorities had no jurisdiction to appoint P.G. Assistant in Tamil by direct recruitment ignoring the claim of such writ petitioner, who is otherwise eligible and meritorious.

1. 2 A counter affidavit was filed by Appellant No.1 school, wherein it was contended that the school being a minority school, Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules was not applicable and the school has discretion to appoint suitable candidate through the process of direct recruitment. It was further stated that at the time of selection of Appellant No.2, the writ petitioner was also given opportunity to appear at the interview so that her merit could be assessed, but she refused to attend the interview. It was further stated that the writ petitioner obtained M.A. Degree through correspondence course, whereas the candidate selected was a regular Post Graduate and the present Appellant No.2 was more meritorious than the present Respondent No.1.

1. 3 Appellant No.2 also filed a separate counter.

1.4 Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment of Appellant No.2 and also issued a direction directing the school authorities to appoint the writ petitioner retrospectively with effect from 6. 2001, but without payment of difference of salary for the past period. Such judgment is being challenged jointly by the school as well as the person who had been appointed directly as P.G. Assistant in Tamil, in this Writ Appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised two contentions. It is first contended that the appellant school being a minority school, the provisions of Rule 15 (4)of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" should not be applied as such Rule affect the discretion of the Management of the minority school in the matter of appointment of teachers. The other contention is to the effect that even if Rule 15(4) is applicable, the appellant school had given opportunity to the writ petitioner (Respondent No.1) to appear in the interview for the purpose of assessment of her merit and since she declined to attend such interview, thereby making it impossible for the Management to assess her merit, she is precluded from challenging the decision of the Management.

3. Rule 15(4) is to the following effect :-

"15(4)(i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only merit and ability are approximately equal.

.(ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods:-

.(i) Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school.

.(ii) If no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method(i) above, -

.(a) Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post o