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.