JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.:---Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2.Respondent No. 3 Smt. Sunandabai Bandodkar High School at Salvador-do-Mundo is a Secondary School recognised under section 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 read with the relevant Rules. On 15th July, 1994, the post of Headmaster of the said School became vacant because of the resignation of the person holding it. Petitioner is the senior most teacher, but instead of appointing her as the Acting Headmaster, it is alleged that respondent No. 5, who is junior to the petitioner in the cadre of the graduate teachers, was posted as an Acting Headmaster of the said School. The action of the Management appointing respondent No. 5 as Acting Headmaster was protested. Ultimately on 8-10-1994, the petitioner came to be appointed as Acting Headmistress of the School. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee was not convened forthwith to have regular appointment of the Headmaster, petitioner made representations. The Director of Education thereupon called respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee and fill up the post of Headmaster on regular basis. Despite aforesaid directions in the year 1996, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not meet. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition No. 159 of 1997. It is alleged by the petitioner that on account of the fact that the respondent No. 4, an office bearer of the Management, was a Minister in the State, the Director of Education did not take any action against the erring Society which was not convening the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. On 26-2-1999, the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 4 that the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 9-1-1999 and selected respondent No. 5 superseding the claims of the petitioner. This decision has been challenged in this writ petition. 3.Respondent No. 3 School, being a recognised School, is governed by Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 and Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986. Rule 74 of the said Rules lays down the constitution of a Selection Committee. The minimum qualifications for the appointment of teaching staff have been laid down under Rule 78. 3.Respondent No. 3 School, being a recognised School, is governed by Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 and Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986. Rule 74 of the said Rules lays down the constitution of a Selection Committee. The minimum qualifications for the appointment of teaching staff have been laid down under Rule 78. The minimum qualifications prescribed are (i) a Degree from a recognised University; and (ii) a Degree in Education/Teaching from a recognised University, with 7 years teaching experience as an Assistant Teacher in the school after graduation out of which 5 years should be post B.Ed./B.T. experience; failing which (ii) Diploma in education (2 years course) of any recognised University or a Diploma sanctioned as equivalent by the Government with 9 years teaching experience in the school after graduation out of which at least 7 years should be post training experience. There is no dispute that both, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, are eligible to be considered since both of them have the minimum qualifications as prescribed by Rule 78. Rule 86 is relevant for our consideration which lays down the factors to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The relevant portion of sub-rule (2) of Rule 86 reads as under:- "While filling up of these posts, the managements shall first explore the possibility of selecting the senior most teacher from the next below category indicated in column 5 of Table under Rule 78. While making such selection the management shall also give very careful consideration and shall select the best qualified and most competent person among those available for selection/appointment to the post. Seniority shall be the first criteria subject to fitness and merit. If the claim of a senior eligible teacher is by-passed, the reason for the same in writing will have to be recorded in the minutes by the promotion committee. The claim of the senior qualified teacher shall not be by-passed arbitrarily without tangible reasons." (emphases supplied) 4.Rules governing the matter of promotion may prescribe different factors which will have to be taken into consideration in the decision-making process. Seniority, merit and fitness are normally considered as relevant in such matters, but which factor should weigh more in comparison with other factors for consideration depends on the language used in the relevant Rules. Seniority, merit and fitness are normally considered as relevant in such matters, but which factor should weigh more in comparison with other factors for consideration depends on the language used in the relevant Rules. In some Rules the seniority may play a prominent role, whereas in some others, merit may be the dominant factor. The phraseology used in the Rule will determine as to what importance the Selection Committee will have to give to each of the items for consideration. The Rule quoted above has not in one place but in three places clearly indicated that the Rule does want that the seniority has to be given importance. The first sentence of the portion quoted above directs the management to explore the possibility of selecting the senior most teacher. Then the Rule prescribes that seniority shall be the first criteria and if the name of the senior most eligible teacher is to be by-passed, the reasons have to be recorded in the minutes and lastly, the Rule reminds that the claim of the senior qualified teacher shall not be by-passed arbitrarily without tangible reasons. A cumulative reading of all the norms under sub-Rule (2) of Rue 86 goes to show that the Rule requires that normally a senior qualified teacher will have to be selected. It is only when there are tangible reasons to by-pass the claim of such person, any person junior to him can be selected. The Rule does not give equal importance to seniority and merit. Admittedly, the petitioner is senior most among the eligible persons. We are told by the learned Counsel for the Management that the Departmental Promotion Committee selected the respondent No. 5 on the basis of the appreciation of the relative merit. The report of the Departmental Promotion Committee mentions the following remarks in respect of the working of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5:--- ______________________________________________________________________ Sr.Name of No.teacherAcademic year Grading as per seniority ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1989-901990-911991-921992-931993-94 ______________________________________________________________________ 1.Mrs. Ma- lini XeteGoodGoodVery Good GoodGood ______________________________________________________________________ 2.Mr. Mohan NaikVery GoodVery Very GoodExcellentVery Good Good/Outstand ing ______________________________________________________________________ It is true that the petitioner had been given a 'Very Good' remark only for one year and for four years she has received remarks 'Good' and the respondent No. 5 has received 'Very Good' remarks for four years and in one year he was adjudged to be 'Excellent and Outstanding'. Mohan NaikVery GoodVery Very GoodExcellentVery Good Good/Outstand ing ______________________________________________________________________ It is true that the petitioner had been given a 'Very Good' remark only for one year and for four years she has received remarks 'Good' and the respondent No. 5 has received 'Very Good' remarks for four years and in one year he was adjudged to be 'Excellent and Outstanding'. Assuming for a moment that when performance of teachers was assessed, the respondent No. 5 was found to be better than the petitioner, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that even the petitioner has been adjudged to be 'Good' for four years and 'Very Good' in one year in the five years which were relevant. Therefore, it is not the case of the Management that the petitioner has something indicating her unsuitableness to her credit. When the seniority has been made the principal consideration by the Rules, it would only be permissible to by-pass the claim of the senior most person if there is something negative which would disentitle him from being given what is due according to his seniority. This negative has to be something to do with the job for which he is being considered. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the Rule prescribes that such a reason which plays negative role in denying just promotion to a senior most teacher will have to be recorded in the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee. This is to ensure that arbitrarily any claim of a senior most person is not by-passed. The use of the expression "tangible reasons" also indicates that the reasons must have some relevance with the purpose to be achieved. We do not find anything on record in the confidential remarks awarded to the petitioner which would disentitle her for the post for which she is being considered. There is absolutely nothing against her at least on record which is made available to us. On the contrary, what is alleged is that the petitioner is sought to be by-passed, firstly, denying her the post of Acting Headmaster, secondly, in delaying the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and lastly, denying her the post of Headmistress on the regular basis by-passing her seniority on the grounds impermissible in the Rules. On the contrary, what is alleged is that the petitioner is sought to be by-passed, firstly, denying her the post of Acting Headmaster, secondly, in delaying the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and lastly, denying her the post of Headmistress on the regular basis by-passing her seniority on the grounds impermissible in the Rules. 5.Shri Sonak has invited our attention to the judgment in (Budh Ram v. State of Punjab others)1, 1987(1) S.L.R. 77 of a learned Single Judge of Punjab Haryana High Court, who was required to deal with a similar situation. Suitable candidates from the clerical cadre were to be recommended for enlistment of 'B' Class Naib Tehsildars. The names were to be recommended on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. When the senior person is not recommended, reasons for ignoring him were to be forwarded along with his personal record. In the five years immediately preceding the promotional process, the petitioner had received 'Very Good' remarks in two years and 'Good' remarks in the three years, whereas his juniors had received 'Very Good' remarks on three or four occasions and 'Good' remark only on one occasion. The learned Judge referring to an earlier judgment of the same Court in (Shri Shadi Lal v. The-Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and others)2, 1974(1) S.L.R. 217, observed that where selection has to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, if the senior most eligible person has merit for the promotion post, he shall be selected irrespective of the better merit of his juniors. The petition was allowed and the promotion of the juniors was quashed. The petitioner before us is on a better footing. The Rule which was interpreted by the learned Single Judge of Punjab Haryana High Court was the rule of seniority-cum-merit. In the instant case, seniority has been given even more importance as compared to seniority-cum-merit rule. 6.Shri Sonak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that since the whole matter is before us, we should hold that the petitioner is entitled to be selected as Headmistress of the respondent No. 3. He also apprehended that some other irrelevant factors may be brought into play to further deny the petitioner's claim. We do not subscribe to the view. 6.Shri Sonak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that since the whole matter is before us, we should hold that the petitioner is entitled to be selected as Headmistress of the respondent No. 3. He also apprehended that some other irrelevant factors may be brought into play to further deny the petitioner's claim. We do not subscribe to the view. The member appointed by the Director of Education has to be truthful to the Rules and his appointment to the Departmental Promotion Committee is justified only if he sticks to the Rules and is objective in his approach. In constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee, the representative of the Education Department is included with a specific purpose that he will assert that the Rules will have to be followed in true spirit and the decision should not be weighed by any other considerations. We are told that the previous member nominated by the Department has since retired. We direct the Department to nominate some other person in his place and also direct that the Departmental Promotion Committee will meet and finalise the selection process within a period of one month from today so that the newly appointed person can assume the charge at any circumstances latest before the commencement of the next academic year. We hope that all those engaged in the process will be objective and will act according to the rules, to which they are dutybound, brushing aside the personal preferences which are not objective. 7.With these observations, we make the Rule absolute. However, there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. *****