JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O. No.(1D) No.162, Pallikalvi (thoka 2(1) Thurai dated 27.05.2019 receive by me on 18.06.2019 and consequently, direct the respondents to confirm and uphold the promotion of myself as Headmistress made by the fifth respondent on and from 01.10.2008 as per the proceedings of the School Committee approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.1992/AA2/2011, dated 21.11.2011 and grant such further or other reliefs.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 27.05.2019 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to confirm and uphold the promotion of the petitioner as Head Mistress of the 5th respondent school.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as a BT Assistant in the 5th respondent school from the year 2004 onwards. One K.Shanthi was holding the post of Head Mistress in the 5th respondent school and her retirement fell on 30.09.2008. The school committee of the 5th respondent school started the process of selection to fill up the post of Head Mistress, after the retirement of the said K.Shanthi. The school committee called for eligible candidates and the list was prepared. Totally the names of four candidates were considered. Out of the four candidates, the other three candidates expressed in writing that they are not opting for the post of Headmistress. Therefore, the school committee was left with only the candidature of the petitioner and considering her qualification and experience, the school committee promoted the petitioner as the Head Mistress of the 5th respondent school with effect from 01.10.2008.

3. The resolution appointing the petitioner as the Head Mistress, was sent for approval to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent also approved the appointment by proceedings dated 21.01.2011.

4. The 6th respondent filed an Appeal opposing the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress, to the 2nd respondent on 04.01.2012. The 2nd respondent by an order dated 09.03.2012, rejected the Appeal. The 6th respondent filed a further appeal before the 1st respondent on 19.02.2013. It is stated that the 1st respondent passed an order allowing the Appeal even without giving notice to the petitioner.

5. This order passed by the 1st respondent became a subject matter of challenge before this Court in WP No.12213 of 2014 and this Court by an order dated 18.08.2017, set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent and remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent by directing the 1st respondent to issue notice to both the petitioner and the 6th respondent and to hear both of them and thereafter, pass orders on merits, within a period of three months. By virtue of this order, the matter was again remanded to the file of the 1st respondent.

6. The 1st respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner and also the 6th respondent and after considering the merits of the case, has passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2019, allowing the appeal filed by the 6th respondent and directing her appointment as the Headmistress of the 5th respondent school. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

7. Mr.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as on the date when the vacancy arose i.e., on 01.10.2008, the 6th respondent did not possess the qualification, since she had not completed B.Ed Degree and she completed the B.Ed degree only in the year 2010. Therefore, the 6th respondent was not in the zone of consideration when the selection took place in the year 2008 for promotion to the post of Headmistress. The learned counsel further submitted that the 6th respondent cannot challenge the appointment of the petitioner as Head Mistress, based on the qualification ob