V.DHANAPALAN,J.
These two appeals have been preferred one by the individual and the other by the school management aggrieved over the common order passed by a learned single Judge, confirming the orders of respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.1252 of 2008, setting aside the appointment of T.Selvapandy, appellant in W.A.No.1184 of 2008, as Headmaster by the School Committee in the W.P.A.Soundarapandian Higher Secondary School, in short "the School".
2. The post of Headmaster fell vacant on the erstwhile Headmaster A.Moses Samuel Chelliah attaining superannuation on 31.05.2004. Pursuant to his retirement, the third respondent, namely, Vajravelu was appointed as In-charge Headmaster. Since the school was run by a Sangam, the management formed a school committee to select the Headmaster from the eligible candidates.
3. The claim of the school in the Writ Petition was that interview was conducted by the committee, calling upon all the eligible P.G. Assistant Teachers working at that time and, based on the interview, marks and merit were awarded to every teacher, pursuant to which the fourth respondent, namely, Selvapandy, who is the appellant in W.A.No.1184/2008 was appointed as Headmaster with effect from 10.02.2005. Distressed over the said appointment, the third respondent, namely, P.Vajravelu preferred an appeal to the first respondent on the ground that he was more meritorious than the fourth respondent. Thereupon, the first respondent allowed the appeal on 17.04.2006, accepting the case of the third respondent for promotion as Headmaster. Against the said decision of the first respondent, the school management preferred an appeal to the second respondent, namely, the Director of School Education, who, by an order, dated 15.06.2007, confirmed the order of the first respondent and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the fourth respondent and the school management preferred the writ petitions, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence, these Writ Appeals, as stated above.
4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Rule 15 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules,1974, (in short, "the Rules") prescribes the method of selection for the post and seniority shall be taken into account only if merit and ability are approximately equal and, in this case, the school committee assessed the merit and ability of all the eligible persons including that of third and fourth respondents and, on a comparative analysis, selected the fourth respondent to the post as he was meritorious and, accordingly, appointed him as Headmaster of the school; therefore, the appellate authority cannot assess the merit and take a decision while exercising its jurisdiction and, as such, the orders of the learned single Judge and also the Department have to be set aside. The learned counsel has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in S.Sethuraman v. R.Venkataraman and Others, 2007 (6) Supreme Court Cases 382, wherein, in para 17, it has been held as under:
"17.While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority has indisputably a plenary power. It may not only consider the respective educational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates had better merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the views of the Managing Committee. If two views are possible, ordinarily, the view of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail."
5. Conversely, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Department would submit that the rules and regulations in selecting the candidate have to be followed by the selection committee and when there is no such adherence to rule of law, the appellate authority has got every jurisdictional right to look into that and set right the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties; considered the rival submissions and also gone through the records.
7. Rule 15 (4) (i) of the Rules stipulates that promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.
8. In this connection, it is imperative to analyse the educational qualifications and merits of third and fourth respondents as follows :
Particulars (1) P.VAJRAVELU (2) T.SELVAPANDY (3) Date of appointment as P.G. Assistant 19.09.1979 10.09.1980 (without B.Ed. (fully qualified from 24.04.1982 with B.Ed.) Total service as on 31.01.2005 25 years & 4 months 24 years & 4 months Date of retirement 28.02.2009 31.10.2011 Educational Qualifications B.Sc. (Maths) M.A. (Tamil) M.A. (Defence Studies) (related to NCC) M.A. (Sociology) (related to Teacher Training) M.Ed.
M.Phil (Tamil) Diploma in School Management Certificate for French learning M.Com.
M.Ed.
B.L.
Subjects taken XI & XII Std. - Tamil X Std. - Maths (1981-1997 & 2004-2005) IX Std. - English Maths (1979-1981) Teacher Training Course in the subjects of Psychology and Sociology (1986-1989) XI & XII Std. - Commerce and Accountancy.
Held the post of Assistant Headmaster From 10.01.1991 to till date Nil Headmaster in-charge From the last week of April 2002 to July 2002 From June 2004 to 9th February 2005 Nil Extra Curricular activities Worked as Associate NCC Officer from 2.11.1980 to till date.
No. of Camps attended : 16.
His NCC Cadet one Mr.P.Ashok Kumar secured All India Third Rank in Tal Sainik Camp in the year 2002 NO
9. The above table makes it clear, that, as regards the educational qualifications, while T.Selvapandy possesses M.Com., M.Ed. and B.L.degrees, P.Vajravelu possesses B.Sc. (Maths), M.A. (Tamil), M.A.(Defence Studies), M.A.(Sociology) and M.Ed. together with Diploma in School Management. Further, Vajravelu had been handling Maths for X Standard and Tamil for Standards 11 and 12. Coming to experience, he had worked as Assistant Headmaster since 10.01.1991 onwards and as Headmaster In-charge since 01.06.2004. With regard to seniority, while Vajravelu, stood at first place, Selvapandy at fifth. Moreso, from the academic years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, in respect of percentage of passes for the students, in the two subjects handled by Vajravelu, the percentage, except in one year, was centum, whereas in the subject taught by Selvapandy, there was 100% result in one year only. Added to the above, Vajravelu was selected as N.C.C.Officer for the students cadets in 1980 and he participated in training camps in Tamil Nadu and at all India levels. He also participated in science exhibitions, maths exhibitions and in Arts and Crafts exhibitions. While he was working as Headmaster In-charge, the percentage of passes regarding the students in Tamil and Maths was 100% for 10th and 12th Standards, for which he was given the Best Teacher Award by the District Educational Officer, North Chennai.
10. So, in respect of Rule 15 (4) (i) of the Rules, it was not only in qualification and ability, but also in service seniority, that P.Vajravelu was in the fore-front and, therefore, he was found by the first respondent to be more qualified for promotion to the post of Headmaster, which finding was confirmed by the second appellate authority and also the learned single Judge.
11. The law is well settled that the appellate authority, while exercising the power conferred on it, should consider the merit of the teachers in the school for the post of Headmaster and the merit includes not only the educational qualifications but the other activities of the candidates for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the candidates has better merit and ability, keeping in mind the views of the school committee.
12. It is also a settled legal position that when the rule prescribes the method of selection in respect of private schools, the authority, must take into account the qualification and ability for promotion to the higher post. In case the qualification and ability are found equal, seniority should be taken into account. If this rule is not followed, it is the bounden duty of the authority, exercising appellate jurisdiction, to set right the defects or anything done contrary to law and that power cannot be termed as arbitrary, which was exactly done in this case.
13. From the above, what transpires is that the qualifications and ability of the two candidates in question had not been assessed in the manner known to law by the school committee whereas the appellate authority applied the rule of law and, on consideration of the entire materials, exercised its jurisdiction and set aside the decision of the school committee, allowing the appeal. The learned single Judge also, on going through the entire relevant materials for consideration of the case and on seeing the relevant qualifications, ability and seniority, found that the appellate authority exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law, thereby confirming the order of the appellate authority and rejecting the case of the appellants.
14. As the appellate authority has considered the educational qualifications and other activities of the two candidates for the purpose of arriving at a just decision as to which of them had better merit and ability as also seniority in accordance with Rule 15 (4) (i), the aspect of taking into account the view of the school committee, which was bereft of merit consideration, is uncalled for. Therefore, the Sethuraman's case, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, is of no avail to the appellants' case.
15. In view of our discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in confirming the orders passed by the Department and dismissing the Writ Petitions. Therefore, these Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.