Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4671-4673 of 1999
PETITIONER:
S. Devasahayam & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Joint Director & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2003
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
The second respondent is a recognized aided
school of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Such
schools are governed by Tamil Nadu Recognized
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and rules
framed thereunder. All the posts coming within
the Private schools are to be filled up in
accordance with the provisions contained in the
said Act or Rules framed thereto. The
management of school appointed the first
appellant as the Head Master. The second
respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority challenging the appellant’s appointment.
The Appellate Authority held that the appellant
was not holding a post as P.G. Assistant which is
the feeder category and, therefore, his
appointment as Head Master was bad and set
aside the same. Against that order, appellant
preferred a writ petition before the High Court and
the learned Single Judge dismissed the same
against which writ appeal was also filed. The
concurrent view of Appellate Authority and learned
Single Judge or Division Bench of the High Court is
that respondent No.2 is the senior most Post
Graduate Assistant and he belongs to the feeder
category to the post of Head Master; that he had
been appointed as a Post Graduate Assistant on
regular basis and had been holding the post of
Assistant Head Master; that the appellant is not
fully qualified Post Graduate Assistant; that he
does not belong to the Post Graduate Assistant in
academic subject or languages; and that he does
not belong to feeder category at all; that he is not
entitled to be promoted as Head Master ignoring
the claim of the second respondent.
In order to find out whether the view taken
by the High Court and the Tribunal is erroneous, it
is necessary to examine the matter with reference
to the relevant rules. Rule 15(4)(i)(d) provides
that the post of Head Master could be filled up
only amongst the categories stated therein and
they are from the category of (1) Head Masters of
High schools; (2) Post Graduate Assistants in
academic subjects; (3) Post Graduate Assistants in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
languages provided that they possess the
prescribed qualifications. It cannot be seriously
disputed that the appellant is not a Post Graduate
Assistant and he does not come under the feeder
category. Merely because he possesses the
necessary qualifications by itself will not enable
him to claim to be appointed as a Head Master. It
is on this basis the Appellate Authority, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court held that
the appellant is not entitled to be appointed as the
Head Master.
The claim made by appellant is that he
possesses Master’s degree in History but he had
not undergone the regular course but in a
condensed course conducted by the Department
itself for a period of 10 months and his degree is
conferred by way of certificate and such teachers
are held to be not in the feeder category so as to
become eligible to be appointed as Head Master.
Such arrangement of giving certificates to certain
teachers became necessary as there was dearth of
Post Graduate teachers being available in the
Higher Secondary Schools such as that of the
second appellant. Thus he becomes an inducted
teacher and not a regular teacher in the cadre.
Bearing these aspects in mind and Appellate
Authority as well as the High Court, have taken a
view, we do not find this matter calls for
interference in a proceeding arising under Article
136 of the Constitution.
Hence we dismiss this appeal.