Judgment :- As the issues raised in all these writ petitions are common, they are jointly disposed of by this order. 2. The issue relates to the appointment to the post of Headmaster in S.M.R.V. Higher Secondary School, Vadasery, Nagercoil. The parties are referred to as per the cause title in W.P.No.38969 of 2004. 3. The petitioner is a Master Degree Holder in Commerce as well a B.Ed. Degree holder. He joined in the third respondent school as a P.G. Commerce Teacher on 25.7.79. A vacancy to the post of Headmaster arose during March, 2002 and one P.Subramanian was appointed as Headmaster on 8.3.2002. Questioning the said appointment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director, the said P.Subramanian filed W.P.No.40873 of 2002. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. As the appeal was not disposed even after the orders in the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.633 of 2003 for a direction for early disposal. This Court again directed the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) to dispose the appeal within the stipulated period. In the meantime, the said P.Subramanian retired from service on 31.5.2003. 4. In view of the retirement, the School Committee selected and appointed the petitioner as Headmaster. The selection was made through a secret ballot and, out of nine members attended, five members were in favour of the petitioner and four members were in favour of the fifth respondent by name P.Thurai Pandian. However, the petitioner was not issued with any appointment order as per the decision of the School Committee. Apparently there was difference of opinion between a group of members and the President on one side and the remaining members and the Secretary on the other side. As the appointment order should be issued in the name of Secretary, he has not issued the order and therefore the order was issued by the President on 30.6.2003. The School Committee forwarded the proposal to the District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari, but no orders were passed. 5. In the meantime, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal to the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), the first respondent on 4.7.2003 questioning the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster. The Secretary appointed the fifth respondent as Headmaster In-charge on 9.7.2003. The School Committee forwarded the proposal to the District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari, but no orders were passed. 5. In the meantime, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal to the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), the first respondent on 4.7.2003 questioning the appointment of the petitioner as Headmaster. The Secretary appointed the fifth respondent as Headmaster In-charge on 9.7.2003. As the request of the School Committee for approval was not considered and no orders were passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23157 of 2003 for a direction to the District Educational Officer, Kanyakumari to dispose of the proposal forwarded by the School Committee. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.8.2003 with a direction to the District Educational Officer to pass orders on the recommendations of the School Committee within one month. By an interim order dated 10.9.2003 the proposal was refused and the same was confirmed by a final order dated 15.9.2003. Questioning the order of rejection of the request for approval, the third respondent school has filed W.P.No.26880 of 2003. The petitioner also filed a separate writ petition questioning the same order in W.P.No.5475 of 2004. 6. While that being so, the fifth respondent P.Thurai Pandian, who was appointed as Headmaster In-charge, filed W.P.No.18309 of 2003 seeking for a direction to dispose of his appeal dated 4.7.2003. By an order dated 15.9.2003 the writ petition was dismissed but, on appeal by the fifth respondent in W.A.No.3490 of 2003, a Division Bench by its order dated 29.10.2003 directed the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) to dispose of the appeal within three months. As no orders were passed disposing the appeal, the fifth respondent again filed another writ petition in W.P.No.15154 of 2004. By an order dated 15.6.2004, this Court directed the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) to dispose of the appeal on or before 31.7.2004. Finally the appeal was disposed of on 17.12.2004 whereby the proposal of the School Committee for approval of appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the fifth respondent, P.Thurai Pandian, was senior to the petitioner and that he would be entitled to be appointed as Headmaster. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.38969 of 2004. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of W.P.No.38969 of 2004. 7. The method of promotion to the various categories of teachers including the Headmaster of Higher Secondary Schools is governed by Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and the said Rule reads as under:- "(4)(i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. (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. (ii) If no qualified and suitable candidates is available by method (i) above,-- (a) Appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers. (b) Appointment of teachers from any other school. (c) Direct recruitment. In the case of appointment from any other school or by direct recruitment, the School Committee shall obtain the prior permission of the District Educational Officer in respect of Pre-primary, Primary and Middle School and that of the Chief Educational Officer in respect of High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools, Teachers’ Training Institutions setting out the reasons for such appointment. In respect of corporate body running more than one school, the schools under that body shall be treated as one unit for purpose of this rule. Appointment to the post of Headmaster of Higher Secondary School shall be made by the method specified in clause (ii) either from the category of Headmasters of High Schools or Teachers’ Training Institutes or from the category of Post-Graduate Assistants in academic subjects or Post-Graduate Assistants in Languages provided they possess the prescribed qualifications." The promotion should be made on the grounds of merit and ability and seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. Appointment to the post of Headmaster should be made firstly by way of promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school and only if there is no qualified and suitable candidate is available, then the school is entitled to make appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers. Appointment to the post of Headmaster should be made firstly by way of promotion from among the qualified teachers in that school and only if there is no qualified and suitable candidate is available, then the school is entitled to make appointment of other persons employed in that school, provided they are fully qualified to hold the post of teachers. Even then if no teachers are available, the promotion shall be made from the teachers of any other school and thereafter by direct recruitment. In terms of Section 18(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the School Committee alone is entitled to appoint the teachers and other employees of the school. In order to determine the merit and ability, the comparative merits and ability of the teachers who are considered for the post of Headmaster should be made by the School Committee and the reasons should be adduced for selecting a candidate for the post of Headmaster. A Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.749 of 1993 dated 8.7.93, while considering the scope of sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules has held as follows:- "We have been taken through the decision of the Selection Committee, which is produced at page 3 of the typed set of records of the writ appeal. Though the decision is in Tamil, my learned brother on going through the same pointed out that the decision contains nothing but the wordings contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules. We must point out that though the Selection Committee is not required to pass the order based on cogent reasons as is done in the Court of law, nevertheless the records of the Selection Committee must show on what basis, it has come to the conclusion that between the two candidates, the one selected in superior both on merit and ability. Even the decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH & NEURO SCIENCES v. K.K.RAMAN ( AIR 1992 SC 1806 ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not state that the records of the Selection Committee need not contain even the basis on which the selection is made. What is stated in that decision is that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory, that it is purely administrative. What is stated in that decision is that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory, that it is purely administrative. It is also further observed that there is no rule or regulation brought to the notice of the Supreme Court requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons and that in the absence of any such legal requirement, the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. It is also further observed therein thus:- "Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support or its decision. Indeed, even the principle of natural justice do not require an administrative authority of a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S.Dass Vs. Union of India, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 617 at p.633; (AIR 1987 SC 303 at p.603-604) in which supeor case ( AIR 1974 SC 87 ) was also distinguished." In this regard, it may be pointed out that sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 specifically states that promotions shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. Therefore, in order to satisfy or to act in accordance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules, the Committee must place on its records or the proceedings of the Committee must disclose that the selected candidate is more meritorious and is also superior in his ability than the one who is not selected. If we have to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, then, we will be giving an unbridled power to the Selection Committee, which can arbitrarily say, of the two candidates appearing before it, one is more meritorious and another is less meritorious without any basis whatsoever. Our arbitrary exercise of power cannot be permitted or upheld as Art.14 of the Constitution strikes at such arbitrary exercise of power. Therefore, it is necessary for the Selection Committee to record the grounds of merit and ability on the basis of which it has made the selection. This interpretation of ours also accords with the very scheme of the Act and the Rules. It may be pointed out here that every decision of the Selection Committee is made appealable to the Appellate Authority. This interpretation of ours also accords with the very scheme of the Act and the Rules. It may be pointed out here that every decision of the Selection Committee is made appealable to the Appellate Authority. If the Selection Committee is not required to state the grounds on which the selection is made, it is not possible to hold that on what basis, the Appellate Authority should consider the validity of the order passed by the Selection Committee, unless it be that Selection Committee gives the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the selected candidate is more meritorious and is superior in his ability than the one who is not selected." 8. The selection of the writ petitioner should be considered in the light of the above judgment. In order to find out as to whether any reason is given by the School Committee to prefer the petitioner, this Court directed the school to produce the original copy of the resolution. A perusal of the resolution shows that the petitioner was selected only on the basis of the decision of the majority viz., 5 members to 4 members. Except the same, the School Committee has not discussed the merit and ability of either the petitioner or the fifth respondent. Of course, it is argued by Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment order dated 30.6.2003 refers to the discussion of the School Committee on the merit and ability in the proceedings dated 27.6.2003. It is true that in the said appointment order a reference had been made to the proceedings of the School Committee dated 27.6.2003 wherein the merit and ability of both the petitioner and the fifth respondent were considered. How far this consideration could be taken into account to contend that the School Committee has considered the merit and ability is a further question to be decided. The consideration and decision shall be borne in the minutes of the School Committee while resolving to appoint the petitioner as Headmaster. As already referred to, the resolution of the School Committee as such does not refer to any discussion, except preferring the petitioner to the post of Headmaster only on the ground that out of 9 members, 5 members supported. The selection and appointment of the Headmaster is not a mere decision of the majority members of the School Committee. As already referred to, the resolution of the School Committee as such does not refer to any discussion, except preferring the petitioner to the post of Headmaster only on the ground that out of 9 members, 5 members supported. The selection and appointment of the Headmaster is not a mere decision of the majority members of the School Committee. Such a procedure is alien to Rule 15(4) of the Rules. The School Committee is bound to consider the eligible candidates only with reference to the procedure enumerated in Rule 15(4) of the Rules and not otherwise. Going by the said Rule, the selection must be only on the basis of merit and ability and in the event both the merit and ability of the candidates are equal, the seniority shall be taken into consideration. In the absence of compliance of the procedure contemplated under Rule 15(4), the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved. By the impugned order the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), while rejecting the request for approval, has gone into the comparative merit and ability of both the petitioner and the fifth respondent. In my considered view, the Appellate Authority cannot go into the comparative merit and ability, in the absence of consideration of the same by the School Committee itself. In the absence of such consideration, the Appellate Authority ought to have remanded the matter to the School Committee for its reconsideration of the entire issue. The Joint Director being the Appellate Authority, of course, is entitled to find out as to whether the consideration of merit and ability by the School Committee are supported by any records or not. However, such power cannot be extended for fresh consideration by the Appellate Authority as to the comparative merit and ability, in the absence of consideration of the same by the School Committee itself which is the authority to select and appoint the Headmaster in terms of Section 18(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 15(4) of the Rules. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. So far as the decision of the Appellate Authority in holding that the fifth respondent, P.Thurai Pandian, is better qualified, again for the same reason, such a decision cannot be sustained as the entire matter has to be remitted back to the School Committee for its fresh consideration. 9. So far as the decision of the Appellate Authority in holding that the fifth respondent, P.Thurai Pandian, is better qualified, again for the same reason, such a decision cannot be sustained as the entire matter has to be remitted back to the School Committee for its fresh consideration. Moreover, the fifth respondent was appointed as Headmaster In-charge by the Secretary only. The appointment to the post of Headmaster shall be made only by the School Committee in exercise of powers under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. No such decision has been taken by the School Committee to appoint the fifth respondent as Headmaster. As such he cannot seek any right over the post, in the absence of a decision by the School Committee to appoint him as Headmaster. 10. In view of the above, W.P.No.38969 of 2004 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent indicated above. The third respondent School Committee is directed to consider all the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Headmaster strictly by following the procedure enumerated under Rule 15(4) of the Rules and also duly taking into consideration of the findings of this Court as well the Division Bench made in W.A.No.749 of 1993. 11. In view of the above order, no further orders are necessary in W.P.Nos.5475 of 2004 & 26880 of 2003 and they are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.46507 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.41 of 2005 are closed. No costs.