- (1.) The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a science graduate teacher in the third respondent school on temporary basis in 1995. The Assistant Director, Professional & Executive Employment Office, addressed a letter dated 30.5.1998 to the Secretary, P.T. Lee Chengalavaraya Naicker Trust, to call for candidates for the vacancies to the post of B.T. Assistant Science (Chemistry) on Open Competition. Several names including the appellant's name were found in the list. The appellant was appointed as B.Sc., B.Ed., Maths Teacher by proceedings No. P.T.Lee CNT/A/768/98 dated 8.9.98. The District Educational Officer addressed a letter to the correspondent of the third respondent school that on the proposals sent by the third respondent school for approval of the appointment of the appellant, no approval will be given since the proposals sent by the school and rejected by the office on 9.7.99 had not been re-submitted. Thereafter, the appellant herself made a request on 3.1.2000 to consider her case sympathetically and appoint her permanently as Physics graduate teacher. Then, she filed the present writ petition for a mandamus to direct the third respondent to submit the proposal dated 26.10.98 to the second respondent to enable the second respondent to approve the appointment and direct the second respondent to approve the appointment.
(2.) The secretary of the third respondent school filed a counter stating that Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974 must be followed in the appointment of the teacher and that by mistake, the committee of management, without considering the Rule 15(4)(ii)(i), adopted the procedure of Rule 15(4)(ii)(ii)(c) by calling for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange. The counter also referred to a letter dated 9.7.99 wherein the District Educational Officer had pointed out that there were eligible candidates to be appointed by way of promotion under Rule 15(4)(ii)(i) of the Rules. It is also averred in the counter that the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant since she has studied in Telugu Medium.
(3.) When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Judge found that Rule 15(4) makes it clear how the appointment has to be made and that as a matter of priority, the post is to be filled up by promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school and thereafter, if no such person is available, to follow the other directions as laid down in the Rule. Respondent No. 4 is one of the secondary grade teachers, who are in the employment of the school and there is nothing on record to show that they had been found unsuitable, in which event alone the next option would be available for the school while deciding the person to be appointed. Rule 15(4) reads as follows: 15. Qualifications, conditions of service of teachers and other persons. (1).... (2).... (3).... (4)(i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. (ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers shall be made by the following methods: (i) Promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school. (ii) If no qualified and suitable candidate is available by method (i) above,- (a) Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers. (b) Appointment of teachers from any other school. (c) Direct recruitment. In the case of appointment from any other school or by direct recruitment, the School Committee shall obtain the prior permission of the District Educational Officer in resepct of Pre-primary, Primary and Middle School and that of the Chief Educational Officer inr espect of High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools, Teachers' Training Institutions setting out the reasons for such appointment. In respect of corporate body running more than one school, the schools under that body shall be treated as one unit for purpose of this rule. (d) Appointment to the post of Headmaster of Higher Secondary School shall be made by the method specified in Clause (ii) either from the category of Headmasters of High Schools or Teachers' Training Institutes or from the category of Post-Graduate Assistants in academic subjects or Post-Graduate Assistants in Languages provided they possess the prescribed qualifications. In these circumstances, the learned Judge found that there was no illegality committed by the second respondent in not according approval and therefore, while dismissing the writ petition held that the third respondent school shall take steps to fill-up the post in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 15(4) and if the petitioner is eligible, her candidature may also be considered.;