The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of minority institutions to appoint teaching staff of their choice and the need for regulations to be in line with the principles established in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case.

PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.

The petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Assistant in the fourth respondent-school, which is fully aided and is also a Christian Religious Minority Education Institution. He was confirmed in service on 111. 2001. The petitioner has filed this W.P. No.37693 of 2007, aggrieved by the appointment of the fifth respondent as B.T. Assistant (English), overlooking his right for the said post and in violation of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 ("Rules" in short).

2. According to the petitioner, he possessed a diploma in teacher education in April, 1987, B.A. (English) degree from Madras University in June, 1991, B.Ed. degree from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in April, 1993, M.A. (English) degree from Madras University in May, 1998 and M.Ed. Degree from the same University in October, 1998. The post of B.T. Assistant (English) was held by one Christraj, who resigned from service on 14. 2004. In his place, one Satheesh was appointed, overlooking the petitioners claim.

3. The petitioner filed W.P. No.3619 of 2005 and the fourth respondent, in its counter, stated that the resignation of Christuraj was not approved and therefore, the said writ petition was premature. This Court disposed of the above writ petition on the submissions made by respondents 3 and 4, with an observation that the petitioners case will be considered in accordance with law along with other eligible persons, if any, in the same school.

4. On 111. 2007, when the department has relieved Christraj on his resignation, regular vacancy arose and according to the petitioner, he was entitled to be appointed in the regular vacancy and he is the only qualified person to hold the said post. Thereafter, applications were called for from outside the school and the Circular to that effect was also pasted in the notice board, calling for the applications to the post of B.T. Assistant (English), informing them that the interview and the written test was to be held on 212. 2007.

5. Immediately, the petitioner filed W.P. No.37693 of 2007. On 20.12.2007, in a miscellaneous petition in M.P. No.2 of 2007, this Court directed the school to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the said post. But, ignoring the said direction, the respondents had appointed the fifth respondent to the said post and therefore, the fifth respondent was impleaded in the said writ petition.

6. In the counter filed on behalf of third and fourth respondents, the Correspondent of the school submitted that the allegation of the petitioner in the affidavit that the selection to the post of B.T. Assistant was on the basis of the undated circular is wrong, but actually the school issued the circular dated 112. 2007, informing the teachers in the schools and in the employment rolls of the education Board. It is also submitted that Rule 15(4) of the Rules is not applicable to the minority institutions and even if Rule 15 (4) of the Rules applies, it does not prohibit the appointments being made from outsiders, if no suitable candidate with merit is found for promotion in the school.

7. In the interview conducted on 212. 2007, the writ petitioner and another person participated in the process. According to the respondents, the writ petitioner gave a letter that he alone should be appointed. A comparative evaluation of the candidates performance is set down in the counter and it shows that in the written test, the fifth respondent had scored more than the writ petitioner; in the model class, the fifth respondent scored more than the writ petitioner and in the oral interview, the writ petitioner scored more than the fifth respondent and in overall assessment, the fifth respondent scored over the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent was more meritorious, efficient and qualified than the writ petitioner.

8. The recommendation of the Board got the concurrence of the third respondent-educational agency and the fifth respondent