Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 13880
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
A.Gurumoorthy – Appellant
Versus
The Director of School – Respondent
Promotions in private educational institutions are based on merits, with seniority considered after evaluating qualifications, and cannot be conferred retroactively.
Headnote:
Promotion - Education - Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 - This case involves the interpretation of Rule 15 regarding promotion criteria based on merit and the timeline of promotion relative to existence of vacancies. The court upheld the validity of the management's decisions regarding promotion timings and seniority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as teachers, claimed entitlement to earlier promotions based on qualifications. They approached the court after not being considered for promotion despite vacancies, seeking to fix seniority retroactively and obtain benefits from an earlier date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that promotions were granted in accordance with existing rules and that seniority could not be fixed retroactively prior to the actual date of promotion. The management acted per directed guidelines in determining eligibility for promotion.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to promotion and seniority from an earlier date than that of their actual promotion, and whether the management adhered to the promotion criteria per applicable regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that promotions in the private educational sector must prioritize merit and ability, and seniority can only be considered when merit is equal. Furthermore, the management's decisions regarding promotion and seniority were upheld.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions are dismissed.
C O M M O N O R D E R
Since the issues involved in both the petitions and the reliefs sought for by the petitioners are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. According to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in 5th respondent / Subramaniya Sasthrigal Secondary School, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District with effect from 09.02.1998; 12.02.2001 as per PRO Na.Ka.057/97 dated 09.02.1998 of the 5th respondent in the vacancy caused by retirement of K.M.Jayaraman and P.Mari on 31.05.1997 and 02.06.1999 respectively. The petitioners have passed B.Lit Degree examination in May, 2004 and they are fully qualified and eligible for promotion of Graduate Teachers, as per panel dated 15.06.2004 issued by the 5th respondent. Though the vacancies for Tamil Pandits were available in 5th respondent school, the petitioners' name were not considered for promotion inspite of their representation to the respondents 1 to 4. The petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.3947 and 3948 of 1998 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 15.02.2008 issued directions to the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass orders. Thereafter, the 1st respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.72405/D/E5/5 dated 01.07.2008 issued direction to the 5th respondent to grant promotion to the petitioners as per Rules and the vacancies available. Eventhough the post of Graduate Teachers of Tamil Pandits were available from the year 2007 onwards, the 1st respondent issued direction only on 01.07.2008 and pursuant to the direction issued in the above said Writ Petitions, the same were not implemented by the 5th respondent and the petitioners were given promotion of Tamil Pandit / Graduate Teacher with effect from 27.02.2013 and 17.10.2014 only in a vacancy caused by the promotion of K.S.Santhi and N.Velvizhi on 05.06.2013 and 01.08.2014 respectively.
3. Further, according to the petitioners they were deprived of seniority and monetary benefits of promotion for about 5 years and 3 years respectively and thereby praying for a direction to fix the seniority on 01.07.2008 below R.Anandhi and above R.Santhi for the petitioner in W.P.No.33136 of 2017 and below A.Gurumoorthy and above R.Santhi Prasad for the petitioner in W.P.No.33137 of 2017 and further pleads for consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand, a detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the 4th respondent, wherein it is stated that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.3943 to 3948, 4005 and 4006 of 2008, the proceedings have been issued by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.72405/D/E5/05 dated 01.07.2008 to the 5th respondent with a direction to make entries in the service books for the acquirement of the Higher Educational Qualification to award incentive increment for higher educational qualification and to give promotion, if there are any vacancies to the eligible petitioners in W.P.No.3943 to 3948, 4005 and 4006 of 2008. The petitioners were promoted as Tamil Pandits/ Graduate Assistants with effect from 27.02.2013 and 17.10.2014, in vacancies caused by promotion of K.S.Santhi and N. Velvizhi on 05.06.2013 and 01.08.2014 respectively and serving in the post since then.
5. It is to be seen that promotion in the Private School is governed by Rule 15 of Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which interalia reads as follows:-
“.... (4) (i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.”
Further, as per the above said Rule, while considering a teacher for promotion, merit and ability shall be considered first and when merit and ability are approximately equal, then only senioity should be considered. That apart, fixing of seniority is the duty of the management. If the management forwards the proposal, the concerned respondents approves the same, if everything is in order. The seniority is solel
