S. SETHURAMAN versus R. VENKATARAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S. SETHURAMAN 
~ 
v. 
R. VENKA TARAMAN AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law-Promotion-To the post of Headmaster-Promotion of 
appellant on the basis of merit-Confirmed by Appellate Authority-Re-
} 
I 
c 
examination of the matter by Appellate Authority at the direction of High 
Court and on being consented by the parties-By final order Appellate 
Authority directing promotion of the respondent-Final Order challenged by 
.appellant-Single Judge of High Court setting aside the order of Appellate 
Authority holding that Authorities should be slow in interfering with the 
selection made by Managing Committee-Division Bench of High Court 
D upholding the order of Appellate Authority on the ground that appellant 
having consented to re-examination was estoppedfrom contesting the order-
On appeal, held: Most of the considerations for judging merit of the respondent 
by the Appellate Authority were irrelevant-Appel/ate Authority though has 
" 
plenary power, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view, the 
E 
view of Managing Committee-When two views are possible, view of Managing 
Committee would prevail-Principle of estoppel is not applicable to the 
present case-Matter remitted to Appellate Authority-Tamil Nadu Private 
Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974-r./5(4)-Tami/ Nadu Private Schools 
(Regulation) Act, 197 3-Estoppel. 
F 
Managing Committee of the school made comparative evaluation of merit 
and ability of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No. 1 for promotion to the 
post of Headmaster. Finding the merit and ability of the appellant better, he 
y 
was appointed to the post. Appeal against the appointment was dism.issed by 
y 
Appellate Authority. In Writ Petition thereagainst, matter was remitted back 
to the Appellate Authority on consent from both the parties. On 
G reconsideration, Appellate Authority opined tha~ merit and ability of both, 
app~llant and respondent No. 1, were equal and since respondent No. 1 was 
senior, he should be selected for the post. Appellant filed Writ Petition against 
the decision. Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition holding that 
except under extra-ordinary circumstances, Authorities should be slow in 
H 
922 
S. SETHURAMAN v. R. VENKATARAMAN 
923 
:- {) 
_"' 
interfering with the selection made by the school management to the post of A 
Headmaster. In Writ appeal, Division Bench of High Court set aside the order 
of Single Judge inter alia holding that parties having submitted to the 
jurisdiction of Appellate Authority, appellant was estopped from contending 
the decision thereof. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority, B 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellate Authority was exercising a quasi judicial function. 
4, 
As an Appellate Authority and acting under a statute, indisputably he could 
not have failed and/or refused to take into consideration the relevant factors 
and base its decision on irrelevant factors or on extraneous consideration. 
Most of the considerations, which weighed with the appellate authority while 
judging the merit and ability of the first respondent, were irrelevant. 
[Paras 21, 23, 24 and 28] [932-C; 933-B-H; 934-A-B[ 
c 
1.2. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the Appellate Authority D 
has indisputably a plenary power. It may not only consider the respective 
educational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for 
the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates had 
better merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in mind 
the views of the Managing Committee. If two views are possible, ordinarily, 
the view of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail. 
E 
[Para 17) (931-F) 
1.3. The matter was remitted to the Joint Director of School Education 
by the High Court with the consent of the parties but the High Court in its 
Order categorically directed the said Authority to consider the matter strictly 
within the scope of Rule 15 of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regula'.ion) Rules, 
1974. The High Court did not and could not enlarge the scope of th~ :ippcal. 
If the Appellate Authority thought otherwise its order would not be ;ustainable. 
It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the High Court to apply its mind on 
F 
the jurisdictional question raised by the appellant. It should have tested the 
orders of the Appellate Authority, and conse

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.