Madras High Court
D. Jeyaselvi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its ... on 8 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)1MLJ130
JUDGMENT K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.5.1993 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16097 of 1991. Learned single Judge has quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and the decision of the Selection Committee and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
2. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant and the 6th respondent were considered for filling up of a post of Headmistress in the 5th respondent School. The Selection Committee selected the appellant Consequently, the 6th respondent challenged the order of the Selection Committee before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Appellate Authority set aside the decision of the Selection Committee and directed that the 6th respondent herein should be appointed as Headmistress of the 5th respondent School. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant herein approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has not only found fault with the decision of the Selection Committee, but has also held that the Appellate Authority is not justified in directing the School Committee to select the 6th respondent herein. Accordingly, learned single Judge has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and also the decision of the Selection Committee and has remitted the matter to the Selection Committee for fresh consideration.
3. It is contended before us that learned single Judge is not justified in remitting the matter to the Selection Committee on the ground that the decision of the Selection Committee is devoid of reasons, therefore it is not valid in law. Reliance is placed on Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also a decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Science v. Dr. K. Kalyanaraman . It is submitted that as the Selection Committee while making selection neither acts as a judicial authority nor a quasi judicial authority, it is not required to give any reasons for its decision. It is further submitted that as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules, promotion has to be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. The Selection Committee has in its order stated that the appellant is superior both on merit and ability to that of the 6th respondent and therefore, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied. Hence, the learned single Judge ought not have interfered with the decision of the Selection Committee.
4. We have taken through the decision of the Selection Committee, which is produced at page 3 of the typed set of records of the writ appeal. Though the decision is in Tamil, my learned brother on going through the same points out that the decision contains nothing but the wordings contained in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules. We must point out that though the Selection Committee is not required to pass the order based on cogent reasons as is done in the court of law, nevertheless the records of the Selection Committee must show on what basis, it has come to the conclusion that between the two candidates, the one selected is superior both on merit and ability. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyanaraman is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not state that the records of the Selection Committee need not contain even the basis on which the selection is made. What is stated in that decision is that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory, that it is purely administrative. It is also further observed that there is no rule or regulation brought to the notice of the Court requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons and that in the absence of any such legal requirement, the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. It is also further observed therein thus:
Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principle of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or an non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India 1986 Supp. S.C.C 617 : , 604 in which Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor was also distinguished:
In this regard, it may be pointed out that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules (1974) specifically states that promotions shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. Therefore, in order to satisfy or to act in accordance with Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules, the committee must place on its records or the proceedings of the committee must disclose that the selected candidate is more meritorious and is also superior in his ability than the one who is not selected. If we have to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, then, we will be giving an unbridled power to the Selection Committee, which can arbitrarily say, of the two candidates appearing before it, one is more meritorious and another is less meritorious without any basis whatsoever. Such arbitrary exercise of power cannot be permitted or upheld as Article 14 of Constitution strikes at such arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, it is necessary for the Selection Committee to record the grounds of merit and ability on the basis of which it has made the selection. This interpretation of ours also accords with the very scheme of the Act and the Rules. It may be pointed out here that every decision of the Selection Committee is made appealable to the Appellate Authority. If the Selection Committee is not required to state the grounds on which the selection is made, it is not possible to hold on what basis, the Appellate Authority should consider the validity of the order passed by the Selection Committee, unless it be that Selection Committee gives the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the selected candidate is more meritorious and is superior in his ability than the one who is not selected. We have already re-produced the relevant portion of the Supreme Court's decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kafyanaraman A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1800 : 1992 Lab. I.C. 1800 : (1992) 2 S.C.C. 461. That decision proceeds on the basis that if there are no Rules, it is not necessary for the Selection Committee to pass a considered order and when the Rule provides that it must make the selection on the ground of merit and ability, the Selection Committee is required to state what are those grounds on which a candidate is selected in preference to the one who is not selected. It is also relevant to notice that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with the case in which the decision of a Selection Committee Was not made appealable. Therefore, we are of the view that the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned single Judge is just and proper and as such, it does not call for interference. Consequently, it follows that this writ appeal must fail. It is accordingly dismissed.