Madras High Court
M. Siluvi Rajan vs Director Of School Education, College ... on 13 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)CTC242
Author: Prabha Sridevan
Bench: Prabha Sridevan
ORDER Judgment pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.
1. The appellant was originally appointed as Middle School Assistant on 16.6.1982, in the fourth respondent's school. Subsequently on 7.6.1993 he was promoted as B.T. Assistant. The P.G. Assistant post in Economics fell vacant on 31.5.1997. Before ever the post fell vacant, on 15.5.1997, the appellant made a request to consider his name for the post of P.C. Assistant. On 2.6.1997, the fourth respondent appointed fifth respondent in the vacancy of P.C. Assistant (Economics). Challenging the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9654 of 1997. The learned Single Judge by the order dated 24.4.1998 dismissed the said writ petition. As against the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Rules 1974 contemplates that "the promotion should be made from among the qualified teacher in the same school and only if no qualified and suitable candidate is available, appointment from out side can be made". In the case on hand, the appellant is fully qualified for the post of P.G. Assistant and as such the appointment of the fifth respondent made by the fourth respondent is bad. He further contended that in the counter statement, the fourth respondent has stated that the appellant's case was considered along with other candidates on 23.5.1997. If that is so, the procedure adopted by the fourth respondent is not inconfirmity with the Rules, the case of the appellant ought to have been considered and only if it is found that the appellant is not suitable, the application from the out side candidates can be called for and considered. The consideration of the case of the appellant along with other candidates is contrary to the statutory requirement and as such as selection of the fifth respondent is vitiated.
3. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Thamby, learned counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents contended that the institution being a minority one, the rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application in view of the guarantee granted under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. He also relied upon some of the judgments of Supreme Court. He further contended that even assuming that the Rules are applicable to the fourth respondent institution, it has been found that the fifth respondent is more qualified and suitable person than the appellant herein and as such, the appellant cannot claim the right of appointment to the P.G. Assistant post by virtue of the seniority alone.
4. We carefully considered the contentions raised by both counsel. Since the learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the matter after extracting the Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, as well as the various other judgments, it is not necessary for us to reproduce the same. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is as per Rule 15(4), the teachers who are working in the school must be considered for the promotion and if no qualified and suitable candidates are available, then only the out side candidates can be selected. Hence without considering the eligibility of the appellant at the first instance, it is not open to the fourth respondent to call for the applications from the outsiders and consider the merits and demerits of all the candidates comparatively.
5. It is for us now to consider whether it is condition precedent to call for the applications from the outsiders that the management has to come to the conclusion that there is no existing qualifying hand in the school. Even for the purpose of arguments, we accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant herein we are of the view that, management calls for the applications from the outsiders that itself would show a prima facie conclusion on the part of the management that the existing staff is not qualified even if qualified, he is not suitable candidate. Even otherwise, in the interest of institution of provide good education, it is always open to the institution to select a better qualified person by calling for the applications for a comparative study. If any better and suitable candidates are available, the management cannot be forced to give a promotion to the existing candidate by virtue of the seniority alone. Rule 14(4) makes it clear that the promotions shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.
6. In the case on hand, the qualification of the appellant is M.A. in Economics (Postal), B.Ed., (History), whereas fifth respondent is having M.A. in Economics (Regular course), B.Ed., (Economics). The regular course would certainly be preferred for a candidate who obtained the Post Graduate Degree by postal study. Apart from this, when the fifth respondent is having a B.Ed. in Economic, the appellant is having B.Ed. in History. When the vacancy of the P.G. Assistant is with regard to the Economics subject, there is nothing wrong on the part of the fourth respondent in selecting the fifth respondent as better qualified person who is possessing degrees of the requirement subject.
7. Mr. G.S. Thamby has referred to the judgments viz., in N. Ammad v. Manager, EMJAY High School and others, 1998 (6) SCC 647; in Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited and another v. Narasingha Charan Mohanti and others, ; and in St. Mary's Higher Secondary School, Kariakal, represented by its Correspondent and Principal v. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary to the Government Education Department, Chief Secretariat Buildings, Pondicherry-1, 2000 WLR 55 in support of his contention that the fifth respondent being a minority institution enjoying the benefit of the guarantee enshrined under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and as such the Rules cannot be applied to the institution. We are not inclined to enter into those question as it is purely an academic one. We find that even assuming the Rules are applicable, the fifth respondent is better qualified person as found by the learned Single Judge. When on merits, the fifth respondent found to be a better qualified person, that would be sufficient for us to dispose of the writ appeal. Hence we find no merits in the writ appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the C.M.P. is closed.