CoramThe Honourable Mr v. The Director of School Education

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 12.11.2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE CHANDRUWrit Petition No.30727 of 2007& M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007P.Manivannan.... PetitionerVs.1. The Director of School Education, Chennai. 600 006.2. The Joint Director of HigherSecondary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.3. YMCA College Sports HigherSecondary School, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 represented by its Correspondent.4. J.Ratna Sigamani.... RespondentsPETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India prayingfor the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for therecords relating to Order Rc.No.Esst/SHS/05/2007 dated 31.08.2007passed by the third respondent and quash the same and direct thethird respondent to implement the earlier orders of the SecondRespondent vide No.Na.Ka.No.82060/lgps;a{ 8/97 dated 24.06.98 andthe order of the first respondent vide No.Mu.Mu.No.43583/lgps;a{ 5/3/07 dated 2.08.2007 by appointing the petitioner to the postof Head Master w.e.f. 01.06.1997 with all consequential benefits.For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.S.GiridharFor Respondents: Mr.V.Manoharan, G.A. - R1 & R2 Mr.Muthukumaraswamy, S.C. For Mr.A.Jenasenan – R3 & R4-------- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThe petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Headmaster in thethird respondent school. The third respondent school is a SportsHigher Secondary School, which is an aided private school in termsof the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973and the Rules framed thereunder. 2. Earlier when the third respondent appointed one Jayakumar,his appointment was challenged in various proceedings andrespondents 1 and 2 refused to grant approval to the appointment ofthe said Jayakumar. Finally after protracted litigation, the firstrespondent/Director of School Education was directed to consider thesaid issue as to the qualification of the said Jayakumar to hold thepost. By an order dated 2.8.2007, the first respondent/Directorheld that the said Jayakumar was not qualified to hold the post ofHeadmaster and only the petitioner is fully qualified. Therefore,the appointment made in favour of the said Jayakumar was set aside.3. Subsequent to the said order, the third respondent Schoolappointed the fourth respondent J.Ratnasigamani, a post-graduateteacher, as Headmaster of the school. While appointing the fourthrespondent, it was stated that he has seniority and ability andaccordingly he was desirable to hold the post of Headmaster of thethird respondent school. It is this order which is under challengebefore this Court. Further the petitioner also seeks for a directionto implement the second respondent's order dated 24.6.1998 whereinthe petitioner was directed to be appointed as an Headmaster. Areading of the said order dated 24.6.1998 only reveals that theapplication of the petitioner will have to be considered inaccordance with the Rule by the School Management and theCorrespondent was advised accordingly.4. Earlier against the order of the Joint Director, HigherSecondary Education dated 03.4.2000, the said Jayakumar filed a writpetition being W.P.No.8485 of 2000 and the third respondent schoolfiled another writ petition being W.P.No.8612 of 2000 and the orderdated 26.4.2007 was passed in the said writ petition. But insteadof the Director passing the order, the Joint Director of HigherSecondary Education passed an order. Therefore, once again theDirector was directed to pass orders as directed by this Court.Pursuant to the same, the Director of School Education passed anorder dated 2.8.2007 referred to earlier. On behalf of the thirdrespondent a counter affidavit dated 5.11.2007 has been filed.5. Heard the arguments of Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counselappearing for the petitioner, Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned seniorcounsel leading Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for R3 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R4 and Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for R1and R2 and perused the records.6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes twosubmissions, viz., i) that the School is not a Minority Institutionas there is no declaration from any Civil Court in this regard andii) even if it is a Minority Institution, the consideration of thepetitioner's claim should be made with reference to the vacancywhich arose during the academic year 1997-98 and it cannot bedetermined on the basis of the present requirement. If it isconsidered in the light of the same, then the petitioner alone isqualified to hold the post. Therefore, his prayer should begranted.7. With reference to the status of the said Institution, it isseen from the records that the Educational Agency of the School,namely, the National Council of YMCA, New Delhi has filed a CivilSuit before this Court in C.S.No.345 of 1998. They have also takenout an original application being O.A.No.230 of 1998 and this courtby an interim order dated 30.4.1998 had made the following order,which was found in paragraph 2:"2. It appears, all along the petitioner hadbeen enjoying the status of a minority institution.Therefore, the same status quo is to continue andNotice to the respondent in six weeks."8. Subsequently, in respect of another workman's dispute camebefore this Court, this Court after referring to the interim orderreferred to above held that until any decision to the contrary istaken, the School will have to be treated as Minority Institution.The said decision of the Division Bench is reported in 2007 (3) LLN389 (YWCA College Sports Higher Secondary School (Sports Wing)represented by its Correspondent), Chennai V. Presiding Officer,Principal Labour Court, Chennai and another. The following passagefound in para 16 from the said judgment may be usefully reproduced:"16. In so far as the finding that the petitioneris not a minority institution is concerned, the matteris pending before this Court in C.S.No.348 of 1998 andan interim order is also granted by this court in favourof the petitioner-management by order, dated April 30,1998. Hence the Labour Court is not justified in givinga finding that the petitioner school is not a minorityschool. Hence the said finding given by the LabourCourt is set aside."9. Therefore, as of now, the School will have to be treated asa Minority Institution having the full protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. Once it is a minority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ institution, then the question as to who should be appointed as aHeadmaster of the School is largely left to the decision of theSchool Management and the Education Department has very little sayon this issue.10. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in (2007) 1 SCC386 (Secy. Malankara Syrian Catholic College V. T.Jose) reiteratedthe legal position that in respect of a head of the MinorityInstitution, the decision of the Minority Management is final andthe Court cannot interfere with the said right. In doing so, theSupreme Court once again affirmed the earlier decision of theSupreme Court in 1998 6 SCC 674 (N.Ammad V. Manager, Emjay HighSchool). Paragraph 18 found in Ammad Case may be usefully extractedabove."18. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in aschool (or Principal of a college) are of primeimportance in administration of that educationalinstitution. The Headmaster is the key post in therunning of the school. He is the hub on which all thespokes of the school are set around whom they rotate togenerate result. A school is personified through itsHeadmater and he is the focal point on which outsiderslook at the school. A bad Headmaster can spoil theentire institution, an efficient and honest Headmastercan improve it by leaps and bounds. The functionalefficacy of a school very much depends upon theefficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. Thispristine precept remains unchanged despite many changestaking place in the structural patterns of educationover the years."11. Therefore in the light of the same that the argument ofthe petitioner that the petitioner's case should be consideredcannot be accepted and the interference by the outside authorities,namely, Education Department, in the appointment of the Headmasteralso has to be rejected.12. However, the argument of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that if unqualified persons are appointed even by aMinority Management, certainly this Court can strike down such anappointment by the Minority Management, because right to manage doesnot include right to mismanage and the regulations prescribingqualifications to hold the post of Headmaster are equally binding ona Minority Management. Since the said Jayakumar is no longer inservice, it is not necessary to go into the relative merits ordemerits of the appointment of the said Jayakumar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. The fact of the matter is that after the order dated24.6.1998 of the Joint Director and the order of the Director ofEducation dated 31.8.2007, the third respondent School has appointedthe fourth respondent and nothing is mentioned about the fourthrespondent lacking in qualification to hold the post of Headmaster.It was for this reason the learned counsel submits that the vacancyposition should be taken back to the year 97-98. This Court isunable to agree with the said submission. Even the order of theJoint Director dated 24.6.1998 does not direct the appointment ofthe petitioner in the place of Jayakumar, it merely direct theSchool Management to consider his case.14. In any event, once the third respondent School's positionis considered as a Minority School, then the appointment of theHeadmaster will have to be necessarily made by the SchoolManagement. The reliance placed upon the order dated 24.6.1998 ismisplaced. The School has filled up the post of Headmaster, whocannot be said to be lacking in any qualification for holding thepost.15. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is devoid ofmerits and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are also dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.slTo1. The Director of School Education, Chennai.2. The Joint Director of Higher Secondary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 670871 cc to Mr.A. Jenasenan, Sr. 67112W.P.No.30727 of 2007& M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007SKV (CO)kk 16/11