JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminating in the order of the fourth respondent dated 22.08.2019 made in O.Mu.No.4961/E5/2019 and to quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster of the sixth respondent school with effect from 31.05.2018 with all attendant service benefits.)

1. The present Writ Petition is heard through Video Conferencing on 29.07.2021.

2. Heard Ms.G.Thilagavathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents 1 to 5, Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent, as well as Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the seventh respondent.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the fourth respondent herein, whereby his appointment with the sixth respondent School as Headmaster was not approved, on the ground that, the petitioner did not possess the experience as a Post Graduate Teacher for being appointed as Headmaster. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondents have been periodically granting approvals by initially appointing the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher on 29.08.2003 on consolidated pay, which was entered in the service register of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Management had granted confirmation to the petitioner as Graduate Teacher Assistant on 01.06.2006, which corresponding service was also entered in the service register with the approval of the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools with effect from 01.06.2006.

4. The learned Senior counsel submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.100, School education Department, dated 27.06.2003, the post of Secondary Grade Teacher was upgraded to BT Assistant with the proposal of the Management and the Inspector of Anglo Indian Schools, had also granted approval for the post of BT Assistant on 21.04.2009 and the corresponding scale of pay for the post of BT Assistant was approved with effect from 01.06.2006. Since the petitioner was working as a BT Assistant and the corresponding scale of pay was also extended to him, the contention of the educational authorities that the petitioner did not possess the experience as a Post Graduate Teacher, is unsustainable.

5. In support of her contentions, the learned Senior counsel placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.12113 of 2011 dated 03.06.2014, in the case of The Manager/Correspondent, V.K.P.Higher Secondary School Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Chennai and Others, for the proposition that the appointment of a teacher is a discretion exercised by the Management, which cannot be curtailed through regulations and consequentially, the approval for such appointment cannot be denied. The learned Senior counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.1397 of 2014 dated 20.07.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge’s view in the aforesaid case came to be affirmed. The reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundations and others V. State of Karnataka & Others dated 31.10.2002 reported in 1993 (4) SCC 788 in the aforesaid proposition and by quoting so, it was submitted that the experience prescribed under Rule 15 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’], is no longer good in law.

6. On the contrary, Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Government Counsel submitted that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of BT Assistant and no such order of promotion is reflected in his service register. It is also his contention that t