Holding

A secret ballot is not a fair procedure for appointing a Head Master; the selection must be a merit‑based, deliberative process considering qualifications, seniority, and administrative ability.

Summary

The case concerned the appointment of the Head Master of a private aided higher secondary school in Tamil Nadu. The school’s Selection Committee chose the candidate by secret ballot, appointing the respondent who received more votes. The appellant challenged this, arguing that promotion should be based on merit, seniority, and administrative ability as required by the Tamil Nadu Recognition of Private Schools Act, 1973 and the Rules of 1974. The High Court directed the Committee to consider all eligible candidates, a decision the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court held that a secret ballot is not a fair procedure for such appointments; the selection must be a deliberative process that evaluates qualifications, seniority, and administrative ability. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the earlier High Court order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a secret ballot is a permissible method for selecting a Head Master under the Tamil Nadu Recognition of Private Schools Act, 1973 and the 1974 Rules.
Whether the Joint Director's order appointing the respondent without a merit‑based assessment is valid.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the School Committee to consider all eligible candidates.
Whether Rule 15(4) of the 1974 Rules allows the School Committee to invite applications from outside the school.
Whether the selection process for promotion to Head Master must be deliberative rather than by secret ballot.

Subjects

private aided schoolheadmaster appointmentpromotionsecret ballotfairnessseniorityadministrative abilityselection committeemerit based promotionTamil Nadu Education law

Judgment

[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
should not only possess educational qualifications but also
D
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
Committee to consider cases of all eligi/Jle candidates for
E 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
appellant preferre(i an appeal, which was allowed by the
l
•
~
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] .
F
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
( G
R. Venkataramani, Beno Bencijar, A.K. Joseph, M.A.
Chinnasamy, for the Appellants.

N. Annapoorani, Subramonium Pra::,?ad, Saurabh Mishra
for the Respondents.
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
-
known as S.M.R.V. Higher Secondary School, Vadasery in the
B 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.

D
3. Mr. P. Subramanian was the Head Master of the said
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
Selection Committee considered the cases of the appellant
E and the first respondent only for appointment to the said post.
The school adopted a policy of choosing the candidate by
secret ballot. The first respondent secured five votes while the
appellant secured four. The School Committee appointed the
first respondent in the post of Head Master.
F
4. Inter alia contending that he was more meritorious than
the first respondent, the appellant preferred an appeal against
the decision of the Selection Committee before the Joint
Director of School Education. By an order dated 17th
December, 2004 the appeal of the appellant was allowed.
G )
•
5. We may also place on record that the appointment of ...
the first respondent was not approved by the said Joint Director.
However, it must also be noticed that one of the allegations
against the first respondent in the inspection reports filed by
H
P. THURAI PANDIAN v. K. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. 375
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
C.E.O. and D.E.O. was that he had never participated in the A
"' Parents Teachers Meeting, Independence Day Celebrations or
any of the functions of the school.

6. The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High
Court questioning the said order of the Joint Director dated B
17th December, 2004. A learned Single Judge of the High
Court allowed the said writ petition and directed the School
Committee to consider the qrnes of all eligible candidates for
appointment to the post of Head Master.

7. The appellant preferred an intra court appeal c
thereagainst which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has
been dismissed.

8. The question which arose for consideration before the
High Court is as to whether the High Court should have
.,. interfered with the order passed by the statutory authority in
D
-4
exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

9. By a detailed judgment both the learned Single Judge
as also the Division Bench took into consideration the
respective qualifications of the appellant as also the first E
respondent to opine that both the School Committee as also
the Joint Director of Schools did not consider the respective
...... ~.
merits and abilities of the parties from all perspectives .

10. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Act and the F
Rules relating to constitution and functioning of the School
Committee, the High Court opined that in terms thereof the role
of the School Committee must be held to be paramount in the
administration of school.

... ii.
11. Before adverting to the aforementioned question we
may notice Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private
G

Schools Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules', which reads as
under:-
•• 1<'"

"15. Qualification, conditions of service of teachers and H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A other persons.-

(4) (1) (i) Promotion shall be made on the grounds of merit
and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and
ability are approximately equal.

B (ii) Appointments to the various categories of teachers
shall be made by the following methods.

[i] promotion from among the qualified teachers in that
school:
c [ii] if no qualified and suitable candidate is available by
method (1) as above - (a) appointment of other persons
employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified
to hold the post of teachers;

D (b) appointment of teachers from any other school;

(c) direct recruitment.

In the case of appointme•nt from any other school or by
direct recruitment, the school Committee shall obtain the
E prior permission of the District Elementary Educational
Officer in respect of Pre- Primary, Primary and Middle
School and that of the inspecting officer in respect of High
and Higher Secondary Schools, setting out the reasons for
such appointment. In respect of Corporate Body running
F more than one school, the schools under that body shall
be treated as one unit for purpose of this rule.

(d) Appointments to the post of Headmaster of Higher
Secondary School shall be made by the method specified
G in clause (ii), either from the category of Headmasters of
High Schools or Teachers' Training Institutes or from the JI •

category of Post Graduate Assistants in Academic
Subjects or Post Graduate Assistants in language provided
they possess the prescribed qualifications"
H
P. THURAI PANDIAN v. K. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. 377
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

12. lhe Managing Committee of the School indisputably A,
was considering the question of filling up the post of Head
.. Master by way of promotion from amongst the qualified teachers
"" ih the school.

The Selection Committee, thus, had to consider the
respective merits and abilities of the qualified teachers for grant
8
of promotion. Both the learned Single Judge as also the
Division Bench arrived at a finding of fact that both the appellant
as well as the first respondent were duly qualified for holding
i
the said post.
c
Oh the aforementioned premise the High Court, in our
opinion, cannot be said to have committed any legal infirmity
in issuing the impugned directions.

13. The Joint Director (School Education) may be an
D
appellate authority but there is nothing to show that the statute
)
provides for 'finality' of his decision. The appellate authority
itself did not hold any viva voce to judge the respective suitability
of the contenders to the post. Apart from the respective
qualifications of the candidates and/or adverse reports of the
E
C.E.O. against the first respondent, he did not consider any
other aspect of the matter.

14. The selection process adopted by the Management
""
of the School was unconstitutional. A deliberative process
amongst the members of the Selection Committee to choose F
the best candidate available for promotion was imperative 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,
they were required to maintain fairness in the selection making G
~ process. Secret ballot would not be a fair procedure for
"' selecting a candidate for the post of Head Master of a ?Choo!
in view of the fact that holder of the said post should not only
possess the educational qualifications but also seniority and
administrative ability. The Selection Committee is required to H
i.
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A consider other qualities of the candidates also for holding the
post of Head Master of an institution.

15. Before, however, we part with this judgment, we must
take note of the fact that the School Committee on 25.10.2006
after the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
8 12.10.2006 was delivered, issued notice to all the concerned
to select the Headmaster again. Admittedly no outsider applied
for the said post. Even from within the School also only the
appellant and the respondent applied. '

C 16. The appellant has also before us challenged the said
notification inviting applications for the post of Headmaster oh
the ground that as per Rule 15(4) of the 1984 Rules, the School
Committee could not have invited applications from outside the
School.
D
17. In our considered opinion, even though applications
had been invited, admittedly no such applicant applied for the
said post. Even from within the school only the appellant here
in P Thural Pandian and respondent No. 1, herein K
Subramanium applied. We would, therefore, reject the
E submission of the learned counsel because at this stage the
said argument has become futile, since no outsider has applied
for the said post of the Headmaster.

18. We must also further take notice of the fact that the
F School committee after considering the IT'erit and ability of both
the applicants, appointed Respondent No. 1 Mr K
subramanium as Headmaster vide Resolution No. 2 dated
25.10.2005. The District Educational Officer on 15.11.2006
approved the proposal for appointment of Mr. K Subramanium
G as Head master of the School and stated that in view of the
common judgment dated 12.10.2006 the appointment order of j ~
P Thurai Pandian as Headmaster dated 28.12.2004 be
deemed to be cancelled.

19. However on 31.01.2007 a new District Educational
H
P. THURAI PANDIAN v. K. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. 379
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
,..t...., Officer was appointed and he cancelled the order of the A
previous DEO dated 15.11.2006. Respondent No.1, K
Subramanium thereafter approached the Madurai Bench of the
Madras high Court by filing a writ petition which was marked
as WP No. 4341 /2007 and obtained an interim stay on
08.02.2007. As a result of the said order of stay respondent No. B
1, K Subramanium is at present holding the post of the Head
Master of the School.
'
~) 2d. We are hereat not concerned with the challenge to the
cancellation of order dated 15.11.2006 of the new District
Educational Officer. We need not make any observations on the
c
said matter as the said matter to the best to our knowledge is
still sub judice. We would, however, request the High Court to
consider the desirability of disposing of the matter pending
before it, if not already disposed of.
D
;>)
21. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no legal
infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed
accordingly. No costs.

R.P. Appeal dismissed. E