A writ petitioner must demonstrate legal standing and cannot rely on speculative claims without a personal grievance or legal injury.

COMMON ORDER

The issues involved in these two captioned writ petitions are interlinked. Hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. In W.P. No. 12954 of 2016, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, namely, the District Educational Officer, Central Chennai, Chennai–600015, to approve her appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in YMCA College of Sports Higher Secondary School, Nandanam, Chennai.

3. In W.P. No. 40205 of 2016, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint her as B.T. Assistant (Science) by way of promotion, with effect from 01.03.2014, taking into account her educational qualifications and seniority in terms of Rule 15(4)(ii)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974.

4. The miscellaneous petition in W.M.P. No. 21740 of 2014 in W.P. No. 40205 of 2016 has been filed seeking to amend the writ petition by incorporating an additional prayer to declare that the appointment of the fourth respondent, dated 22.06.2015, to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the third respondent school and the consequential approval granted by the Board of Management on 17.10.2015 are arbitrary and illegal, and to quash the same.

5. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P. No. 40205 of 2016.

6. Factual Background

6.1 The petitioner, S.B. Rexlin, states that she completed her B.Sc. (Botany) in 2001, M.Sc. (Botany) in 2003, B.Ed. in 2004, and M.Ed. in 2011. She was appointed as Assistant Headmistress in the Matriculation School run by the third respondent management in 2008, and she claims to have discharged her duties sincerely, diligently, and to the satisfaction of the school. The third respondent school, being a Higher Secondary School in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government, is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the Rules framed thereunder.

6.2. In 2013, the petitioner applied for the post of Science Teacher (B.T. Assistant – Science) and was informed that she had been selected. She asserts that the third respondent management promised to absorb her into the said sanctioned post. Upon the retirement of one Precila Paul, who was holding the sanctioned post of B.T. Assistant (Science), with effect from 01.06.2014, the petitioner expected to be absorbed into the vacancy. However, contrary to the Rules, the third respondent appointed the fourth respondent, who was allegedly junior, less meritorious, and, significantly, the daughter of Mrs. Evelin Gnanadas, the then Headmistress of the third respondent school.

6.3. The case of the fourth respondent is that she possesses the requisite qualifications, namely B.Sc. (Zoology) and B.Ed., which render her eligible for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). She was appointed to the said sanctioned post with effect from 22.06.2015, pursuant to the retirement of the incumbent on 01.06.2014. According to her, passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) was not mandatory for such appointment, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India , [2014 (4) MLJ 486 (SC)]. It is further contended that the competent authority has, without valid reasons, failed to approve the proposal forwarded by the school for her appointment.

7. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. L. Parvin Babu, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, contended that the appointment of the fourth respondent was actuated by mala fides and marred by illegality, as she is the daughter of the then Headmistress of the third respondent school, besides being junior and less meritorious than the petitioner. He further submitted that a petition has been filed to amend the writ petition to incorporate a challenge to the appointmen