WP/34933/2012 of PULAVAR M.CHELLAM,M.A.,M.PHIL Vs DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL on 18 September 2026

ORDER

Heard Ms.Ananya Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Ms.P.Kalpa Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 & 2; Ms.A.Arul Mary, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 3 & 4 and Mr.S.M.Edward Stanley, learned counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent and perused the record.

2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that he had joined as Tamil Pandit (which is equal to the cadre of B.T Assistant) in the Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Selliampatti, Dharmapuri District on 21.01.1994 and was transferred to the 4th Respondent School in June, 2006; that on being transferred to the 4th Respondent School, his original seniority was maintained; and that 4th Respondent School is a Government Aided Minority Religious School and is under the control of 3rd Respondent.

3. The Petitioner also contended that he had vast experience in the teaching profession for more than 18 years; that during his tenure, not even a single student failed in Tamil subject; and that the Tamil Nadu Government in recognition had issued him a Certificate to the said effect.

4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he had completed Pandit Training between June 1990 and October 1990 and that, the said Pandit Training has to be considered as equivalent qualification to the B.T. or B.Ed. Degree as per G.O.Ms.No.720 Educated Department dated 28.04.1981; and that he had underwent 4 years education in Tamil (Oriental Title) for obtaining Tamil Pulavar and also, he had completed B.Lit., (Tamil) during April, 1997.

5. The Petitioner contended that the 4th Respondent School did not maintain separate seniority list and only followed the seniority as per the Attendance Register; that in the Attendance Register, his name is shown in 1st position and thus, he is the senior most Tamil teacher in the 4th Respondent School; that in the month of January 2012, a vacancy for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) had arisen in the 4th Respondent School; and that with great expectation of being promoted to the said post, he had submitted an application to the 3rd Respondent on 07.02.2012.

6. Petitioner further contended that being fully eligible and qualified for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) apart from being the senior most Tamil Teacher in the 4th Respondent School, the Head Master of the 4th Respondent School had recommended his name for promotion; and that despite his name being recommended by the Head Master of the 4th Respondent School, to his shock and surprise, 3rd Respondent had appointed the 5th Respondent who is the junior most Tamil teacher working in the 4th Respondent School, as P.G. Assistant (Tamil) on 20.10.2012 with effect from 01.06.2012.

7. Petitioner contended that though he and 5th Respondent are holding same educational qualification, Petitioner is senior to the 5th Respondent by 4 years, as such, Respondents 3 & 4 ought to have considered and recommended the Petitioner to the promotional post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil); that failure of Respondents 3 & 4 in considering and recommending the Petitioner’s name to the promotional post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) has caused great prejudice to the Petitioner’s service and promotion of his junior (5th Respondent) is a violation of Petitioner’s valuable legal right for being considered for promotion; and that based on the recommendation of the 3rd Respondent, 5th Respondent who is junior to the Petitioner has been appointed to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) by the 2nd Respondent vide Proceedings dated 20.10.2012 bearing Pa.Mu.No.2149/2012 (Aa2).

8. It is the further case of the Petitioner that as per Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “1974 Rules”), the promotion shall be made on the basis of merit and ability and subject to possessing B.Ed., Degree qualification; that possessing B.Ed., Degree qualification, though is mandatory, by virtue of proviso inserted in the schedule relating to the filling up of said post, the Tamil Pandit Training or Secondary Grade Training

Certificate possessed by the Petitioner is considered as equivalent qualification to the B.T. or B.Ed., Degree and as such, Respondents 3 & 4 could not have excluded the Petitioner from being considered to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) on the ground that he has not possessed B.Ed., Degree.

9. Petitioner thus contended that the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the law. Contending as above, Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent on the basis of proceedings dated 01.06.2012 issued by the 4th Respondent recommending the 5th Respondent for the promotional post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) and to consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to recommend and appoint the Petitioner as P.G Assistant (Tamil) w.e.f. 01.06.2012 with all benefits.

10. In support of the above submissions, Petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1912

(ii) State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 482

(iii) Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. State of Goa & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 619

(iv) R.Balavadivel Vs. Chief Educational Officer & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 M.L.J 679

(v) M.Chelladorai Vs. Joint Director of School Education & Ors. reported in 2003 SCC Online Mad 15

11. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the 3rd Respondent. The main contention of the 3rd Respondent is that 3rd Respondent Management is administering 27 schools under the aegis of the R.C.Diocese of Dharmapuri; that previously, it was a part of R.C.Diocese of Salem; that the schools under the management of Diocese of Salem (then educational agency) was declared to be a minority education agency by this Court vide its Order dated 24.09.1975 passed in W.P.No.587 of 1975; that in the year 1996, the Diocese of Dharmapuri was bifurcated from the Diocese of Salem, hence, on account of being a minority educational agency, all the schools run by the Catholic Diocese of Dharmapuri are governed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

12. The 3rd Respondent further contended that the 4th Respondent School had only one sanctioned post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) as per the Staff Fixation of the year 2011-2012; that the said post fell vacant upon the retirement of one Mrs.Selva Mary on 31.05.2012; that against the said vacancy arising due retirement of the teacher, 3rd Respondent had selected and promoted the 5th Respondent who has been working as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in the 4th Respondent School; and that 2nd Respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2012 approving the promotion of 5th Respondent from the date of her promotion i.e., with effect from 01.06.2012.

13. It is the further contention of the 3rd Respondent that as per Annexure – V (IV) (3) of 1974 Rules, preference shall be given to those who have studied Tamil as a main subject both in Degree and Master’s in the language.

14. The 3rd Respondent also contended that Petitioner has possessed the qualification of Tamil Pulavar, B.Lit. (Tamil), M.A. (Tamil) & M.Phil (Tamil), whereas, 5th Respondent has possessed the qualification of B.A. (Tamil), B.Ed., (Tamil), M.A. (Tamil) & M.Phil. (Tamil); and that the Petitioner does not have B.Ed., Degree which is an essential qualification to be appointed as a P.G. Assistant (Tamil).

15. It is also contended by the 3rd Respondent that while the Petitioner is the senior most Tamil Teacher in the 4th Respondent School, the management of a minority educational institution has the right of appointment its staff and it also has the right to promote the eligible and meritorious candidate and the seniority alone cannot be the criteria for promotion.

16. The 3rd Respondent further contended that since, the 5th Respondent possessed the B.Ed. Degree and satisfied the eligibility criteria for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil), she was selected and appointed to the said post; that the Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules is not applicable to minority institutions and that Petitioner cannot claim promotion only based on seniority and as a matter of right.

17. The 3rd Respondent also contended that Petitioner had retired from service on 30.04.2013 and received his service and retirement benefits and thus, this Writ Petition has become infructuous. Contending as above, 3rd Respondent prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

18. In support of the above contentions, 3rd Respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) The Devangar Higher Secondary School Vs. S.Manimaran & Ors. (Common Judgment dated 22.07.2019 in W.A.(MD) Nos.581, 601 & 660 of 2019)

(ii) Manager, Corporate Educational Agency Vs. James Mathew & Ors. reported in (2017) 15 SCC 595

(iii) S.Francis Vs. The Joint Director of School Education & Ors. (Judgment dated 31.07.2014 in W.A.No.1143 of 2012)

(iv) Eka Ratchagar Sabai Higher Secondary School & Anr. Vs. K.Sumathi & Anr. reported in (2007) 4 L.W. 617

19. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 & 2 contended that based on the recommendation forwarded by the 3rd Respondent for appointing the 5th Respondent to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil), 2nd Respondent approved the same vide impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2012 and that 2nd Respondent played no role in this selection process, except, to ensure that selected candidate possessed the required qualification as prescribed in the Rules & Schedules.

20. It is further contended by the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 & 2 that since 5th Respondent possessed the required qualification as prescribed in Annexure – V (IV) (3) of the 1974 Rules, 2nd Respondent has approved the promotion of 5th Respondent from the date of her promotion i.e., with effect from 01.06.2012. Contending as above, the Respondents 1 & 2 seek for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

21. I have taken note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 & 2 & learned counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5 and perused the materials available on record.

22. At the outset, it is to be noted that 4th Respondent School is under the management of 3rd Respondent and 3rd Respondent which manages various schools including the 4th Respondent School is considered as minority educational institution. The fact that 3rd Respondent and the schools run by it being recognised as minority educational institutions would result in the said schools enjoying the protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

23. Once the Respondents 3 & 4 are considered as minority educational institutions, Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules would not apply to such institutions and the said institutions are free to select the qualified person from the minority community to fill up the vacancy and the Court cannot go into the merit or choice or priority or the process of choice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, Corporate Educational Agency Vs. James Mathew & Ors. reported in (2017) 15 SCC

595.

24. Further, various Division Benches of this Court have consistently taken a stand that once an educational institution enjoys the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules would not apply to such institutions. See: S.Francis Vs. The Joint Director of School Education & Ors. (Judgment dated 31.07.2014 in W.A.No.1143 of 2012). A Division Bench of this Court in Eka Ratchagar Sabai Higher Secondary School & Anr. Vs. K.Sumathi & Anr. reported in (2007) 4 L.W. 617 had held that Rule 15(4)(ii) of the 1974 Rules is not applicable in respect of the minority educational institutions.

25. Thus, it is now well settled law that Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules would not apply to the minority educational institutions. Thus, the contention of the Petitioner that he being the senior most B.T. Assistant (Tamil) should be selected to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) as against the selection of the 5th Respondent would not hold much water.

26. Further, since, the 3rd Respondent by considering the educational qualification possessed by the Petitioner and also that of the 5th Respondent having made the choice to appoint 5th Respondent who possessed B.Ed., Degree, while the Petitioner possessed only a Tamil Pandit Training Certificate, which is only considered as equal qualification as per the Rules, the correctness of the choice of 3rd Respondent or of the choice made by the 3rd Respondent cannot be gone into by this Court, in view of the constitutional protection enjoyed by the educational institutions set up by the minority community in relation to the administration of educational institutions established by it.

27. Insofar as the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decision of this Court in the case of M.Chelladorai Vs. Joint Director of School Education & Ors. reported in 2003 SCC Online Mad 15 is concerned, the said decision has been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Eka Ratchagar Sabai Higher Secondary School’s case (referred to supra).

28. Further, the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. State of Goa & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 619 is concerned, in the said judgment, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under the constitutional scheme, a minority institution is free to select and appoint a Principal, without being bound by the principle of seniority alone, but, the said appointment should be in a transparent and fair manner.

29. In the facts of the present case, having regard to the educational qualification possessed by the 5th Respondent, 3rd Respondent made a choice to appoint the 5th Respondent to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil), as against the Petitioner who only possessed the equivalent qualification and not the same qualification as that of the 5th Respondent. The relevant qualification specified in Annexure V (IV) (3) of 1974 Rules is extracted hereunder: Name of the Post Qualification Post-Graduate Assistants Languages (Tamil)

(i) A Master’s degree in Tamil or its equivalent; and

(ii) B.T. or B.Ed. Degree or its equivalent:

Provided that for appointment to the post by recruitment by transfer from the post of Tamil Pandit in the High School, the Pandit Training or Secondary Grade Training shall be considered

as

equivalent qualification to the B.T. or B.Ed. Degree. Provided further that, other things being equal, preference shall be given to those who have studied Tamil as a Main Subject both in degree and Master’s degree levels. Thus, the 3rd Respondent having regard to the qualification prescribed in the rules having made the choice of appointing the 5th Respondent to the post of P.G.Assistant (Tamil), such appointment cannot be held as non-transparent or unfair or improper.

30. Further, in matters of appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil), the merit and ability being the predominant consideration and seniority to be considered only when the merit and ability of the two candidates are equal, the 3rd Respondent having found the 5th Respondent to be more eligible for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil), this Court is of the view that it cannot conduct a roving enquiry by taking up on itself the role of appointing/selecting authority to see whether the Petitioner is better qualified than the 5th Respondent, thereby interfering with the choice of the 3rd Respondent or thereby impeding the freedom guaranteed to the 3rd Respondent under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

31. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the challenge by the Petitioner to the selection process undertaken by the 3rd Respondent to fill up the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) by selecting the 5th Respondent and communicating the same to the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Respondent acting on the said communication having issued the impugned proceedings dated 20.10.2012 approving the promotion of 5th Respondent from the date of her promotion i.e., with effect from 01.06.2012 cannot be held either as illegal, arbitrary or unjust for it to be held as bad to be set aside.

32. In the result, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 18.09.2026 mrr Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

To

1. Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

2. District Educational Officer, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Manager, Dharmapuri Dioceses of R.C.Schools, Dharmapuri.

4. The Correspondent, St.Antony’s Higher Secondary School, Elathagiri – 635 108, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

T.VINOD KUMAR

, J.

mrr Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.34933 of 2012 18.09.2026