Madras High Court
Mark Donald Carron vs The State Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2024:MHC:3104
W.A.No.2320 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.2320 of 2021
and
CMP.Nos.14704 & 14705 of 2021
Mark Donald Carron,
... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary
Education Department (Higher Education)
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Higher Secondary School Education,
College Road, DPI Compound,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Secondary School Education,
College Road, DPI Compound,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
5. The District Educational Officer, (WEST),
DPI Compound,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2320 of 2021
6. The Correspondent,
St. George's Anglo-Indian Higher Secondary School and Orphanage
738, Periyar EVR Salai,
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.
7. Wesly Hudson
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set
aside the order dated 09.08.2021 made in W.P.No.25800 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mrs.G.Thilagavathi
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5
Mr.V.Prakash
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Adrian D.Rozario for R6
Mr.G.Sankaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan for R7
*****
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.]
The instant writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner assailing
the order of dismissal passed in WP.No.25800 of 2019.
2. The brief facts which give rise to the instant writ petition is that, the
petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
at St Matthias Anglo-Indian Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai with
effect from 29.08.2003. Thereafter, he was promoted and confirmed as BT
Assistant in the English subject. While so, the 6th respondent-Management
called for applications during April 2018 for the post of Headmaster.
Pursuant to the said notification, when the petitioner applied, amongst the
other candidates, the 6th respondent has selected the petitioner as Headmaster
of St George's Anglo-Indian Higher Secondary School. Thereafter, he was
appointed as the Headmaster of School with effect from 01.06.2018. The
appointment was forwarded to the 4th respondent for approval. However, the
4th respondent has not granted the approval on the ground that the petitioner
did not possess the required qualification qua Post Graduate service
qualification and the said rejection order dated 22.08.2019 is under challenge
in the writ petition.
3. The said writ petition was resisted by the 4th respondent, by
contending that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Grade
Secondary Grade Teacher with consolidated pay with effect from 29.08.2003,
and he was brought to regular scale of pay of Secondary Grade Assistant
with effect from 01.06.2006. Thus, according to the 4th respondent, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner was serving as a Middle Grade Teacher with effect from
01.06.2006. It is also the submission of the 4 th respondent that by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.1091/Fin(Pc) department dated 15.06.1978, the qualification for
the Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School is the Post Graduate Degree
with 10 years teaching experience, out of which 2 years should have been as
a Higher Secondary Assistant in any Higher Secondary Schools.
4. It was also contended by the 4th respondent that the qualification for
the Higher Secondary School Headmaster has been further reviewed vide
letter in Rc.No.1057/W8/93 dated 08.07.1996 fixing the qualification for the
appointment of Higher Secondary School Headmaster as Post Graduation
with B.Ed/BT qualification with 10 years teaching experience as
B.T.Assistant and experience in feeder category of High School Headmaster
or Headmaster in any Teacher Training School and P.G. Assistant, in any
recognised school with service not less than 5 years. According to the 4 th
respondent, the petitioner did not have required qualification and the
petitioner had acquired only 10 years of service in the category of B.T.
Assistant and he has not at all rendered service as P.G.Assistant. Therefore,
it is contended by the 4th respondent that the petitioner has not qualified to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointed as the Headmaster. Therefore, states that the rejection order is in
conformity with the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools
(Regulation) Act, 2018.
5. In line with the 4th respondent's counter statement, the 7th respondent
qua the rival candidate, who has been subsequently impleaded and claiming
to be appointed as Headmaster, contended that the petitioner did not qualify
to be appointed as the Headmaster and that he [R7] is the only eligible person
to be appointed as the Headmaster.
6. The Writ Court, after having considered both side contention, found
that even though the petitioner being a Minority Educational Institution, by
referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolawana Gram
Vikas Kendra Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC
133 held that in respect of appointment of teaching staffs and other staffs,
that too when they obtain grant from the Government, has to follow the Tamil
Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974. The Writ Court
has also found that the petitioner did not possess the required qualification
and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved with the same, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant Writ Appeal.
7. The learned Senior Counsel Mrs.G.Thilagavathi appearing for the
appellant would vehemently contend that the 4th respondent has filed a
contradictory counter statement. Whereas, at the first instance, in the counter
statement filed on 04.10.2019, they have categorically admitted that the
petitioner was serving in the cadre of B.T.Assistant till 2018. However, they
took a different stand while filing the comprehensive affidavit that the
designation of B.T.Assistant is by oversight deviating from their earlier
submission. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner did not possess the
required qualification cannot be countenanced. It was also contended by the
learned Senior Counsel that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.144 (School Education
Department) dated 04.07.2008, the person, who has qualified in B.Ed and
appointed to teach VI, VII and VIII in subject English, Science and Maths
could be converted as B.T. Assistant post by the competent authority. It was
also contended by the learned Senior counsel that by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.244 (School Education Va Se-2) dated 22.09.2007, the above
benefit was extended to the Aided Schools also. Thus, the learned Senior
Counsel would submit that the petitioner has got requisite qualification to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointed as the Headmaster in the Higher Secondary School. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the 4th respondent is contrary to law. Hence,
prayed to allow the writ appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents 1 to 5 would vehemently contend that the petitioner did not
possess the required qualification as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu
Private Schools (Regulation) Act in Annexure V. It was also contended that
by virtue of the letter in Rc.No.1057/W8/93 dated 08.07.1996, a candidate to
be appointed as the Headmaster in Higher Secondary School should possess
Post Graduation with B.Ed with 10 years teaching experience and also
having 2 years experience in the feeder category. Whereas, the petitioner was
not at all a B.T Assistant, and he was only the Junior Grade Secondary Grade
Teacher, and he was not in the feeder category so as to consider him in the
post of Headmaster. It was also contended that even though the 6 th
respondent School is a Minority Institution, they are bound by the Tamil
Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act. Therefore, their proposal, sending
the name of the petitioner for approval, who has no required qualification, has
been rightly rejected. Hence, the learned Special Government Pleader would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submit that there are no merit in the writ appeal and hence, prayed to dismiss
the same.
9. In line with the submissions made by the learned Special
Government Pleader, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.G.Sankaran appearing
on behalf of the 7th respondent, who is one of the main contesting respondent,
and also the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash appearing on behalf of the
6th respondent has supported the contentions urged by the learned Special
Government Pleader.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
11. The first and foremost submission raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that, the 6th respondent in the writ petition, being the Minority
Institution they are not bound by the Rules of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools
(Regulation) Act. In this regard, the learned Single Judge has elaborately
considered and has ultimately held the applicability of the Act by referring
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolawana Gram Vikas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kendra's case [cited supra] and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Chennai and
others Vs. St. Aloysius Higher Secondary School, Royappanpatti, Madurai
District and batch etc., reported in 2011 (1) Mad LJ 1041. According to the
above reported case, though no prior approval is necessary for selection, but
such selection and appointment has to be approved by the Government. It
was further held that the appointment of the Teacher cannot be made
unilaterally and that the person who possess requisite qualification alone can
be appointed.
12. It was also further held that when the minority institution is
receiving grant from the Government, it becomes mandatory on their part to
seek the approval for the appointment to the sanctioned post. Therefore, the
issue in respect of the application of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation)
Act to minority aided educational institution is no longer res integra. Thus,
the 6th respondent though Minority Institution, still they are bound by the
Regulations under the Private Schools (Regulation) Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Therefore, now the issues becomes narrow down as to the refusal
to grant approval by the 4th respondent is in accordance with law. It is
pertinent to mention here that the 4th respondent refused to grant approval on
the ground that the petitioner did not posses the required qualification.
According to Annexure V of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation)
Act, the following qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster in
the Higher Secondary School stipulated:-
Name of the post Qualification
1.Headmaster or i) [A Master's Degree of a University in the State
Headmistress (Higher for teaching any of the languages under Parts I and
Secondary Schools) II or subjects under Part III, Group “A” of the
syllabus for Higher Secondary Courses or a
Master's Degree of equivalent standard in any one
of the subjects or languages, specified in the said
syllabus or a certificate issued by the University of
Madras for having under the Certificate Course in
Science and Humanities for Graduate Teachers in
High Schools during the year 1960-1964;]
ii) B.T. Or B.Ed. Degree or its equivalent
iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten
years as B.T.Schools Assistant or Pandit in a
Secondary School or Training School or Higher
Secondary School recognised by the Director of
School Education.
Provided that the experience in the category of
Headmaster and Headmistress in a school
recognised by the Director of School Education
shall be taken into account for calculating the
experience in the category of B.T.Assistant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. Subsequently, the said qualification has been reviewed vide letter in
Rc.No.1057/W8/93 dated 08.07.1996, which has been communicated to all
CEO/DEO's as per Govt. lr.58270/HS/95-1 dated 7.6.96 and the reviewed
qualifications for the post of Higher Secondary School Headmaster is:-
“1. Post Graduation with B.ED/B.T qualification
With
2. 10 years teaching experience as B.T.Asst.
With
3. Experience in feeder category of High School Head Master
(or) Head Master in any Teacher training School.
4. P.G.Asst., in any recognised school with service not less
than 5 years.”
15. Therefore, it is obvious that a person to be appointed as the
Headmaster of Higher Secondary School must have a Post Graduation degree
with 10 years teaching experience and with experience in feeder category viz.,
as a High School Headmaster or Headmaster in any Teacher training School.
Whereas, the petitioner was initially appointed on 29.08.2003 as Junior
Grade Secondary Grade Teacher. Therefore, the petitioner was not at all a
B.T Assistant. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel would invite the
attention of this Court in respect of the endorsement made in the service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
register of the petitioner as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant with effect from
01.06.2006. However, as rightly contended by the learned Special
Government Pleader, there are no entries in the service register to infer any
promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Junior Grade B.T.Assistant. But,
the entry in service register signify his promotion as the Middle Grade
Assistant. Therefore, the main plank of the arguments put forth by the
respondents that the petitioner did not have a requisite qualification, is well
merited. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in refusing to grant approval for
the petitioner to be appointed as Higher Secondary School Headmaster.
Thus, there are no ground to interfere with the order of the Writ Court.
16. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected CMPs are also closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.]
19.08.2024
kmi
Index : Yes
Speaking order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary,
State Government of Tamil Nadu,
Education Department (Higher Education)
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of Higher Secondary School Education,
College Road, DPI Compound,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3. The Joint Director of Higher Secondary School Education,
College Road, DPI Compound,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
4. The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of the Chief Educational Officer,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
5. The District Educational Officer, (WEST),
DPI Compound,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
Pre-delivery judgment in
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
