Dharmamurthi Rao Bahadur CalavalaCunnan Chetty's Hindu Higher Secondary School,Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District v. The Joint Director of School Education
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On the retirement of one Mr.M.Ponnu Pillai, thenHeadmaster of the School on 21.8.2005, a circular was issued fromthe management inviting applications from the P.G.Assistants whoare willing to become Headmaster of the Institution. In response tothe circular, seven Post Graduate Assistants submitted theirapplications and out…
- Para 77. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, thepetitioner's school is receiving aid from the Government of TamilNadu, that in order to fill up the post of Headmaster from the PostGraduate Assistants and accordingly six…
- Para 99. In answer to the above, learned counsel for therespondent department would submit that in the instant case, it istrue that the school committee conducted interview and it has alsoselected Mr.Ravindran , but it was not final. Accordingly, challenge was made by the third respondent…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.12.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.19491 OF 2007 Dharmamurthi Rao Bahadur CalavalaCunnan Chetty's Hindu Higher Secondary School, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District, rep.by its. Honorary Correspondent & Secretaryof the School Committee Sri C.Venkatachalam...PetitionerVs.
The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) and Appellate Authority Chennai 600 006.
The Chief Educational officer, Thiruvallur3. Thiru T.R.Perumal PG AssistantDharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty's Hindu Higher Secondary SchoolThiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. ...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus order tothe 1st respondent calling for the records concerningD.Dis.101229/W5/3/2005 dated 20.4.2007 issued by the 1st respondentand quash the same and consequently direct to forbear therespondents from implementing the orders of the 1st respondenttill the disposal of Writ Petition as stated within. For Petitioner: Mr.R.S.JeevarathnamFor Respondents 1 and 2: Mr.Shanmugamathi SekarFor Respondent 3: Mr.N.KolandaiveluO R D E R Challenge is made to the order of the first respondentcalling for the records concerning D.Dis.101229/W5/3/2005 dated20.4.2007 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same andconsequently forbear the respondents from implementing the ordersof the first respondent till the disposal of the writ petition. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused.
The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.
Admittedly, the Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavala https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cunnan Chetty Charities Trust was established in the year 1920which is a public trust and the object of the trust is to establishEducational Institutions. One among them is petitioner's school at Thiruvallur and it is administered by the Trust and it was startedon 21.06.1917. During 1949-50 it became a High School and in theyear 1978-79, the school was upgraded as Higher Secondary School. The school enjoys permanent recognition and also receiving Aid fromthe Government of Tamil Nadu.
On the retirement of one Mr.M.Ponnu Pillai, thenHeadmaster of the School on 21.8.2005, a circular was issued fromthe management inviting applications from the P.G.Assistants whoare willing to become Headmaster of the Institution. In response tothe circular, seven Post Graduate Assistants submitted theirapplications and out of which, the 3rd respondent and oneMr.Ravindran were also included. After scrutinizing the list, sixqualified candidates were called upon to appear before the SchoolCommittee on 1.8.2005. The school committee which has 12 members, out of which 11 sat in the interview and has selected oneMr.Ravindran, Sl.No.4 for the post of Headmaster and theappointment order was issued in his favour by the Management on4.8.2005. Accordingly, the said Ravindran assumed charge as Headmaster of the petitioner's School on 31.8.2005.
While the matter stood thus, the third respondentpreferred an appeal to the first respondent on 26.9.2005 and thematter was kept pending for nearly eighteen months and the impugnedorder came to be passed on 20.4.2007 allowing the appeal preferredby the third respondent stating that his merit and ability werefound to be approximately equal and as such his appeal to promotehim as Headmaster based on his seniority is being allowed andorders were also issued. Under such circumstances, the petitionerhas brought forth this writ petition before this Court.
Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, thepetitioner's school is receiving aid from the Government of TamilNadu, that in order to fill up the post of Headmaster from the PostGraduate Assistants and accordingly six persons including oneRavindran who was appointed for the post of Headmaster and thethird respondent herein were called for an interview and they werealso appeared in the interview. The committee which has 12 membersout of which 11 were sat in the interview has selected oneMr.Ravindran, Sl.No.4 for the post of Headmaster and theappointment order was issued in his favour by the Management on4.8.2005, pursuant to which he has also assumed charge on31.8.2005. The impugned order came to be passed on an appealpreferred by the third respondent after a period of eighteenmonths. The only reason that was adduced by the authority was thatthe merit and ability of the third respondent and the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ravindran are approximately equal and also the third respondent hasgot seniority than the other candidate Ravindran and hence theappointment order of the third respondent has to be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would furthersubmit that the appeal was allowed stating that the merit andability of the third respondent are found approximately equal withthe said Ravindran as per the provisions of the Tamil NaduRecognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. It is truethat the competent authority i.e. the school committee who issupreme authority has to decide the question of merit and ability ,and at the time of interview, out of 12 members, 11 members sat inthe interview found that the said Ravindran who is a person withability and once they selected the candidate who is better thanothers, the seniority has no role to play. When the particularswere called for by the first respondent to show his merit andability, necessary documents were filed by the management. But, itwas not considered by the authority and once the selection has beenmade in accordance with the rules by the school committee, theauthority cannot found that some other candidate is senior to thesaid Ravindran and his merit and ability are approximately equal. Under such circumstances, the order impugned has got to be quashed.
In answer to the above, learned counsel for therespondent department would submit that in the instant case, it istrue that the school committee conducted interview and it has alsoselected Mr.Ravindran , but it was not final. Accordingly, challenge was made by the third respondent, who was alsoparticipated in the said interview. The authority has perused thedocuments and found that the third respondent was foundapproximately equal to Mr.Ravindran who was selected by the Schoolcommittee. But, at the same time, the third respondent is senior tothe said Ravindran. Under such circumstances, the committee shouldhave been appointed the third respondent, but it did not done so. Hence, the question of cancellation of the said order would notarise and hence the writ petition has got to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the third respondent would submitthat the third respondent was working as Post Graduate Assistant(Maths) in the first respondent school and number of studentsappeared for the Maths subject and the Maths subject is adifficult subject, while the said Ravindran is taking class for Economics and Commerce and the number of students are less and theabove subjects are not difficult one. Apart from that, at the timeof interview, merit and ability of the third respondent was foundapproximately equal but the school committee did not notice thesame and hence the selection of the said Ravindran was not correct. Under such circumstances, challenge was made by the thirdrespondent before the Joint Director of School Education, the firstrespondent herein by way of appeal and the appeal was also allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ While disposing of the appeal, the first respondent wanted certainparticulars from the management and the said particulars were alsosubmitted by the petitioner School on 11.9.2006. A reading of theorder under challenge would clearly reveal that in the case ofthird respondent and Ravindran, the merit and ability wereapproximately equal and it is also pertinent to note that the thirdrespondent is senior to the said Ravindran and hence the firstrespondent has taken a correct view and the selection made by theschool committee was not proper . Thus, the first respondent who isvested with power has rightly set aside the appointment of the saidRavindran and hence the appointment of the third respondent wasalso directed to be made. Under such circumstances, the writpetition does not merit consideration and it has got to bedismissed.
The Court paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.
It is not in controversy that interview was conductedby the school committee on 1.8.2005 wherein six candidates werecalled for interview and all those six candidates were PGAssistants. The committee consists of 12 members out of which 11members sat in the interview and selected one Mr.Ravindran andappointment order was also given to him on 4.8.2005 and he alsoassumed charge as Headmaster on 31.8.2005. The third respondent whowas also a candidate of PG Assistant and who has also appeared forinterview, aggrieved over the same has preferred an appeal beforethe first respondent and the first respondent allowed the appeal, whereby the appointment of the said Ravindran was set aside and adirection was given to the management to give appointment to thethird respondent as Headmaster. From the report of the schoolcommittee, it could be seen that after discussing the issue atlength and after making an objective assessment and properapplication of mind, the school committee found that Mr.Ravindran, Sl.No.4, PG Assistant in Commerce is more suitable for the post of Headmaster of Thiruvallur School on selection basis.
From a readingof his appointment order, it could quite clear that there was anobjective assessment and also proper application of mind. It ispertinent to point out that the question of seniority could beconsidered as per Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred toas the Rules), if the merit and ability are found to beapproximately equal. In the instant case, the School committeeconsists of 12 members conducted an interview. It is not incontroversy the Committee has also given a report stating that ithas got satisfaction and thus in the instant case, the merit andability of the respective candidates have been taken intoconsideration. If they are approximately equal, only then, seniority must have a role to play. In the instant case, the maincontention of the third respondent is that he is senior than the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said Ravindran and which is not in dispute.
While considering themerit and ability, the the appellate authority failed to considerthat Thiru Ravindran was able to secure 99% of the results in thesubject handled by him and secured 100% results twice whilecomparing the third respondent who was able to secure only 95% inhis subject with more number of failures in the subject handled byhim. It is not the case of the third respondent that the managementhas got any ulterior motive to appoint the said Ravindran byrejecting the case of the third respondent. Needless to say thatthe management will have more concern than others with the Institution. Once the school committee consists of 12 members outof which 11 sat in the interview, were of the same opinion that thesaid Ravindran has got better merit and ability on the objectiveassessment of the available materials on record, it is not correctto state that seniority is the main criteria. Though, the meritand ability of both the candidates are approximately equal, in theinstant case, the contention put forth by the third respondent thattaking Maths class is very difficult, cannot be countenanced.
Inthe instant case, the management has rightly done so. In theinstant case, though the documents were called for and all theparticulars were furnished by the petitioner's school, but thefirst respondent has taken a view, which is not consistent with Rule 15(4)(i) of the Rules . All the more, it could be seen thatwhat was registered in the mind of the authority was that the thirdrespondent was senior in service and therefore that has to beprevailed over to him. Hence, the authority was of the view thatthe appointment order should have been given to the thirdrespondent than the said Ravindran. But, it is pertinent to pointout that strict compliance of Rule 15(4)(i) of the Rules is that ifthe merit and ability of two candidates are approximately equal, then seniority has to be taken into account. In the instant case, when a school committee has got jurisdiction to found that the saidRavindran was more competent person to appoint as Headmaster amongall the six candidates , there is no question of considering thecase of the third respondent, would arise. Hence this Court isunable to notice any reason to sustain the order of the firstrespondent and hence it has got to be set aside and accordingly setaside and the order of the first respondent is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ VJYTo1.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) and Appellate Authority Chennai 600 006.2.The Chief Educational officer, Thiruvallurone cc to Mr.R.S.Jeevarathinam, advocate SR.No.73089one cc to Mr.N.Kolandaivelu, advocate SR.No.73173one cc to the Government Pleader SR.No.73302W.P.NO.19491 OF 2007
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 11 Dec 2007. The bench was M CHOCKALINGAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.