Judgment :- 1. Challenging the order of the 1st Respondent in Mu.Mu.No.21972/W8/2005 dated 14. 2006 confirmed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.43156/W5/E3/06 dated 16. 2007 communicated to the Petitioner on 07.07.2007, Petitioners School Management has filed W.P.No.24328/2007. 2. Seeking Writ of Mandamus to issue directions to the School Management to implement the order passed by the 1st Respondent, 3rd Respondent has filed W.P.No.38889/2006. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petitions are as follows:- (i) The post of Headmaster fell vacant on the erstwhile Headmaster A.Moses Samuel Chelliah reached superannuating on 35. 2004. After the retirement of erstwhile Headmaster, 3rd Respondent who is the Asst. Headmaster was appointed as in-charge Headmaster. Since, Petitioners school was run by a Sangam, the Management formed a School Committee to select the Headmaster from the eligible candidates. (ii) According to the Petitioner Management, interview was conducted by the Committee by calling upon all the eligible P.G. Assistant Teachers working at that time. Based on the interview, marks and merits awarded to every teacher and the Committee finally selected the 4th Respondent to the post of Headmaster and the 4th Respondent was appointed as Headmaster from 2. 2005. (iii) Aggrieved by the same, 3rd Respondent preferred an appeal to the 1st Respondent. Holding that on merit, ability and seniority, 3rd Respondent is suitable person for being appointed as Headmaster, 1st Respondent allowed the appeal in Mu.Mu.No.21972/W8/2005 dated 17.04.2006. .(iv) Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners School Management has filed appeal to the 2nd Respondent. By the order dated 16. 2007 communicated to the School Management on 07. 2007, 2nd Respondent confirmed the order passed by the 1st Respondent. Challenging the impugned orders as arbitrary and illegal, Petitioners School Management has filed W.P.No.24328/2007. .(v) 3rd Respondent has filed W.P.No.38889/2006 to appoint him as Headmaster of the Petitioners school, Court has allowed the Writ Petition against which 4th Respondent has filed W.A.No.691/2007. The Division Bench has set aside the order of learned single Judge and the matter is remitted back for joinder of necessary parties. 4. Mr. S. Dharmakkan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner School Management has contended that after scrutinizing various factors, School Committee has taken decision of appointing 4th Respondent as the Headmaster and without application of mind, first Respondent has allowed the appeal preferred by the 3rd Respondent. 4. Mr. S. Dharmakkan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner School Management has contended that after scrutinizing various factors, School Committee has taken decision of appointing 4th Respondent as the Headmaster and without application of mind, first Respondent has allowed the appeal preferred by the 3rd Respondent. Learned counsel for the Petitioner School Management has further submitted that the person selected for the post of Headmaster must have trust and confidence of the school administration and to provide quality education and the act of the 1st Respondent in allowing the appeal is illegal and arbitrary and the same cannot be sustained. 5. Mr. C. Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent has contended that based on merit, ability and experience in the administration, 3rd Respondent is the suitable candidate for being appointed as Headmaster. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that only with a view to show favoritism to 4th Respondent, School Management has over looked the merit, ability and seniority of 3rd Respondent and 1st Respondent has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the 3rd Respondent and the same cannot be interfered with. 6. Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent has submitted that 3rd Respondent was found not suitable on merits despite being senior which is not the sole criteria for consideration. It was further argued that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.38889/2006 having subjected himself to the selection process and being unsuccessful on merits cannot maintain the Writ Petition. 7. Point falling for consideration is whether the 1st Respondent was right in allowing the appeal preferred by the 3rd Respondent and whether right in directing the School Management to appoint 3rd Respondent as Headmaster. 8. Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974, deals with the qualifications, conditions and services of the Teachers and other persons employed in the private schools. As per the Rule 15(4) (i), promotion shall be made on the grounds of merit and ability, and only when the merit and ability are approximately equal, seniority is to be considered. Further, it is stated that while making appointments to various categories of teachers the school management shall follow the following methods, .(i) Promotion among the qualified teachers in that school. Further, it is stated that while making appointments to various categories of teachers the school management shall follow the following methods, .(i) Promotion among the qualified teachers in that school. .(ii) If no qualified and suitable candidate 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. As per the above rule, it is clear that the post of Headmaster is a selection post and the selection is based on merit and ability. Seniority will be considered only when the merit and ability are approximately equal. 9. As per Rule 15 (4-A) any person employed in the institution aggrieved by an order issued under sub rule (4) may prefer an appeal to the authority specified in sub-rule (4A). Being aggrieved by the order of the School Management appointing 4th Respondent as Headmaster, 3rd Respondent has preferred statutory appeal under rule 15 (4-A). According to the School Management, School Committee has found the 4th Respondent, a Maths teacher with merit and ability being suitable for appointing as Headmaster. 10. In the impugned order, 1st Respondent has clearly pointed out as to how 3rd Respondent is of more merit and ability and having higher educational qualification and also having extra curricular activities to his credit. By comparison of merit and ability of the 3rd Respondent with 4th Respondent, this Court finds that the 1st Respondent was justified in allowing the appeal preferred by the 3rd Respondent. 11. We may usefully have a comparison of the educational qualification and merits of the 3rd and 4th Respondent: Teacher Training Course in the subjects of Psychology and Sociology (1986-1989) XI & XII Std. - Commerce and Accountancy. Held the post of Assistant Headmaster From 10.01.1991 to till date Nill Headmaster in-charge From the last week of April 2002 to July 2002 From June 2004 to 9th February 2005 Nil Extra Curricular activities Worked as Associate NCC Officer from 11. 1980 to till date. No. of Camps attended : 16. His NCC Cadet one Mr.P.Ashok Kumar secured All India Third Rank in Tal Sainik Camp in the year 2002 NO Even on analysis of results, 3rd Respondent is said to have produced 100% passes for quite a long time. 1980 to till date. No. of Camps attended : 16. His NCC Cadet one Mr.P.Ashok Kumar secured All India Third Rank in Tal Sainik Camp in the year 2002 NO Even on analysis of results, 3rd Respondent is said to have produced 100% passes for quite a long time. From the above, comparative table, this Court is of the view that the 1st Respondent was justified in allowing the appeal preferred by the 3rd Respondent. The impugned order is not vitiated by non-application of mind or infirmities as alleged by the Petitioner. Second Respondent has rightly confirmed the order of 1st Respondent. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 12. After the filing of W.P.No.38889/2006 by the 3rd Respondent, Charge Memo is said to have been issued to the 3rd Respondent. When the 3rd Respondent has served in the school for nearly 30 years. Framing of charge after filing of Writ Petition appears to be vindictive attitude of the School Management. 13. W.P.No.38889/2006:- In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:- " Second Respondent-Director of School Education is directed to implement the order of 1st Respondent by issuing suitable directions to the School Management and such direction shall be issued within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. " In case of non-compliance of the directions by the School Management, 2nd Respondent- Director of School Education is directed to take appropriate action against the School Management. " It is open to the Petitioner to challenge the Charge Memo issued to him in the manner known to law. 14. W.P.No.24328/2007: - In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.