LexP. THURAI PANDIAN versus K. SUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.O.R. 372
A
P. THURAI PANDIAN
•
v.
K. SUBRAMANIAN AND OTHERS
(Civil App~~I No. 5097 of 2009)
AUGUST 4, 2009
[S.13. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
TAMIL NAOU RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS
RULES, 1974:
c
r. 15(4) - Appointment to post of Head Master of
Secondary School - School selecting the candidate by secret
ballot - HELD.· Secret ballot would not be a fair procedure for
selecting a candidate to the post of Head Master- Candidate
D should not only possess educational qualifications but also
seniority and administrative ability besides other qualities -
'
While filling up the post by promotion, respective merits of
qualified teachers of the School had to be considered - There
is no infirmity in the order of High Court directing School
E Committee to consider cases of all eligi/Jle candidates for
appointment to the post 9f Head MCJster -
TCJmil Nadu
Recognition of Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
._
The appellant ~nd respondent no. 1 were teachers in
the same Higher Secondary School. Consequent upon
F
the post of Head Master of thfl School becoming vacant,
the appellant and respondent no. 1 being the only
contenders for the post, the School adopted a policy of
choosing the candidate by secret ballot. Respondent no.
1 having secured more votes than the appellant, the
G School Committee appointee! him as Head Master. The
l •
appellant preferre(i an appeal, which was allowed by the
Joint Director of School Education. Respondent no. 1
~
challenged the order of the Joint Director in a writ petition
before the High Court, which c!lrected the School
H
372
-
.
(
P. THURAI PANDIAN v. K, SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. 373
Committee to consider the cases of all eligible
A
candidates. The intra court appeal of the appellant havin{J
been dismissed, he filect the <1ppe<1I.
Dismissing the appeal, the Col!rt
HELD: Secret ballot would not be <! f<1ir procecturn fqr S
selecting a candidate for the post of He<1ct Ntaster qf a
school. Holder of the said post should not only possess
the educational qualifications but also seniority and
administrative ability. The Managing Committee of the
School indisputably was considering th~ question of C
filling up the post of Head Master by way'jof promotion
from amongst the qualified teachers in the school. The
Selection Committee, thus, had to consider the respective
merits and abilities of the qualified teachers for grant of
promotion. A deliberative process amongst the members
D
of the Selection Committee to choose the best candidate
available for promotion to the post of Head Master was
imperative in nature. The Selection Committee and for that
matter the Management of the School must not only
function in terms of the provisions of the statute, but they
E
were also required to main~jn fairness in the selection
making process. The selection process adopted by the
Management of the School Wits unconstitutional. [Pam 1~
and 14) [377·A; 377-8; 377-F-G; 377-G-H]
..
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5097 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.10.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 485 of 2005.
I
R. Venkataramani, Beno Bencijar, A.K. Joseph, M.A.
Chinnasamy, for the Appellants.
N. Annapoorani, Subramonium Pra::,?ad, Saurabh Mishra
for the Respondents.
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~
S.6. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
-
1. Parties hereto had been working in a school commonly
B
known as S.M.R.V. Higher Secondary School, Vadasery in the
District of Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu. It is a 'private aided school'
within the meaning of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Recognition of Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (for short
'the Act').
)
c
2. Indisputably the conditions of service of the teachers of
the said school are governed by the provisions of the Act and
the Rules framed thereunder.
3. Mr. P. Subramanian was the Head Master of the said
D school. He retired on 31st May, 2003 whereupon a vacancy to
..
the said post occurred. The appellant as also the first
~
re$pondent were not the seniorr.1ost teachers in the said school.
But as the first two seniormost teachers expressed their
unwillingness to be the Headmaster of the school, the School
E
Selection Committee considered the cases of the appellant
and the first respondent only for appointment to the said post.
The school adopted a polExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.