The management can choose any method for assessing merit and ability, and the subjective satisfaction of the management cannot be tested by the appellate authority.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.16051 of 2020 dated 23.11.2021.

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed in W.P(MD)No.18393 of 2020 dated 23.11.2021.)

Common Judgment:

R. Subramanian, J.

Challenge in these two writ appeals is to the order of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.16051 & 18393 of 2020 filed by the appellants herein. The challenge in those writ petitions was to the order of the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai, dated 14.10.2020 in and by which, he had allowed the appeal filed by the private respondent in these writ appeals namely, V.Ramakrishnan, challenging the appointment of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022 as the Headmaster of E.R Higher Secondary School, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The private respondent has mounted a challenge to the appointment of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022 mainly on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to participate in the selection process which was done in a secretive manner without notice to him. The post of Headmaster of the school had remained vacant and the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022, a junior P.G. Assistant, was appointed as a Headmaster(in-charge). Aggrieved, the private respondent in these appeals approached this Court seeking a direction to appoint a permanent Headmaster. This Court by order dated 19.06.2019 in W.P(MD)No.13150 of 2019 directed the school management to appoint a Headmaster by following Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Pursuant to the said direction, the Chief Educational Officer, Tiruchirappalli, wrote to the school on 17.09.2019 requiring the school to take immediate action. Consequently, the school management published a notice in the notice board on 09.10.2019 requiring all qualified P.G teachers to appear for a written test and an interview to be conducted on 13.10.2019 at 10.00 a.m. in the school premises. It is stated that 9 out of 11 teachers participated in the process of selection and the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022 was selected and appointed on 13.10.2019 and he assumed charge as Headmaster on 14.10.2019. Aggrieved by the said selection, the private respondent herein filed an appeal before the Joint Director complaining that he was not given an opportunity. The Joint Director did not dispose of the appeal in a reasonable time which led to the private respondent again approaching this Court for a Mandamus directing the Joint Director to dispose of the appeal. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Joint Director of School Education to dispose of the appeal within a specified time. Thereafter, the appeal came to be disposed of by the Joint Director who allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022 directing the school management to re-do the exercise of appointment of the Headmaster. It is this order which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions.

3. The Writ Court had agreed with the contention of the private respondent and the reasoning of the Joint Director to the effect that since no notice was given to the private respondent regarding the selection process, the same is vitiated and the school was required to re-do the selection process. Pending writ petition, there was an interim order allowing the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022 to continue as Headmaster. In view of the above proceedings, the appointment of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022 as Headmaster was not approved by the competent authority.

4. We have heard Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned counsel appearing for the school, Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.768 of 2022, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Mr.Isacc Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent.

5.