Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 8 (MAD)

L. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

2010-01-02

H.L.GOKHALE, K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2010
Judgment :- K.K. SASIDHARAN, J The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order passed by the learned Judge dated 110. 2009 in W.P. No. 25002 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department dated 7. 2006 in G.O. Ms. No. 223, setting aside the appointment of the appellant, was confirmed. The Background Facts: The appellant’s case 2. The appellant was originally appointed as Post-Graduate teacher in Sennimalai Kumarappa Higher Secondary School in Erode District and he was in the service of the said institution for the period from 10. 1982 to 33. 1983. He also served as Post-Graduate Teacher in Vivekananda Higher Secondary School, Thireuvedagam from 310. 1983 to 6. 1985. Subsequently, he was appointed in the fifth respondent School as P.G. Assistant. The appointment was on 16. 1985. The sixth respondent was appointed as P.G. Assistant in the fifth respondent institution on 13. 1985. 3. While the appellant was working as P.G. Assistant, the then Head Master Thiru M. Venkatachalapathi retired on 35. 2003 on attaining superannuation. Therefore, the post of the Head Master became vacant with effect from 6. 2003. There were ten P.G. Assistants working in the fifth respondent institution qualified for appointment as Head Master. The appellant was having a qualified service of nineteen years and as such he was fully qualified for appointment as Head Master. 4. The School Committee of the fifth respondent institution called for applications from the eligible Post-Graduate Teachers for appointment to the post of Head Master. The sixth respondent was also an applicant for the said post. The appellant as well as sixth respondent appeared before the Selection Committee on 11. 2003. The relative merits of the candidates were assessed by the School Committee and accordingly the appellant was selected as the Head Master. The appellant was having post-graduate decree in M.Sc.(Physics), B.Ed., M.Ed., M.Phil., (Education), M.A. (History), M.A. (Sociology) and M.A. (Economics) besides certificate in various other courses. He was also given Best Teacher Award for 2000-2001 by the Rotary Club of Mettur, Salem. All these relative merits were considered by the School Committee and it was only after satisfying that the appellant was having substantial merit over the sixth respondent, he was selected. 5. The selection of the appellant as Head-master was challenged by the sixth respondent before the Joint Director of School Education, the second respondent herein. All these relative merits were considered by the School Committee and it was only after satisfying that the appellant was having substantial merit over the sixth respondent, he was selected. 5. The selection of the appellant as Head-master was challenged by the sixth respondent before the Joint Director of School Education, the second respondent herein. Before the Appellant Authority, the School Committee justified the action in appointing the appellant as Headmaster. The second respondent considered the appeal on merits and arrived at a finding that the appellant was fully qualified and was in a meritorious position for appointment as Headmaster. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed as per order dated 15. 2004. .6. The order of the appellate authority was challenged by the sixth respondent before the first respondent. Even before the first respondent, the management supported the case of the appellant and represented that the selection was fair and transparent that the appellant was meritorious. However, the first respondent being the revisional authority disagreed with the finding rendered by the appellate authority and allowed the revision by setting aside the selection of the appellant. The order dated 6. 2006 on the file of the first respondent was challenged by the appellant in W.P. No. 25002 of 2006. The Case of Management: 7. The Secretary of the School Committee of the fifth respondent filed a counter in answer to the contentions raised in the writ petition. The material averments as found in the counter reads thus: (a) The post of Headmaster of the School became vacant on 35. 2003. The management called for applications for appointment to the post of Headmaster. There were ten applications and the Committee after eliminating two of the teachers viz., Mr.Arumugam and Ms. Chitra considered the remaining eight persons and selected the appellant. .(b) No interview was conducted to select the Headmaster. The minutes of the meeting revealed that the claim of the appellant alone was considered and the merits of other candidates were not discussed. .(c) The consideration for appointment as Headmaster was merit and the question of seniority would come only if the merit was equal. The primary yardstick for assessing the merit is the ability in the concerned subject and taking classes, for which percentage of result alone would be the yardstick. The merits of the appellant alone was considered by the committee. .(c) The consideration for appointment as Headmaster was merit and the question of seniority would come only if the merit was equal. The primary yardstick for assessing the merit is the ability in the concerned subject and taking classes, for which percentage of result alone would be the yardstick. The merits of the appellant alone was considered by the committee. .(d) The true picture with respect to the relative merits of the candidates and their services were not placed before the School committee. The appellant furnished incorrect details with respect to his length of service in the institution. As per the note submitted to the School Committee, the service of the appellant was mentioned as 19 years and 5 months. However, the sixth respondent, who was appointed prior to the appellant in the institution was shown as having experience of only 18 years and 2 months. .(e) The appellant was appointed only on 16. 1985 in the fifth respondent institution. On the other hand, the sixth respondent was appointed as early as on 13. 1985 and therefore he was senior to the appellant. .(f) When the service details were called for, it was found that a separate column was opened deliberately to include the service rendered by the appellant in other institutions. .(g) The School Committee considered the order passed by the first respondent and it was found that the sixth respondent has secured higher percentage of results for the students as P.G. Teacher for two subjects viz., Commerce and Accountancy. The appellant was the subject teacher in Physics. Physics was the sole paper in the public examination and Commerce and Accountancy are two different papers. In case, the performance of the appellant and the sixth respondent for a period of five years from 1998 to 2003 are taken into consideration, it would be evident that the performance of the sixth respondent was comparatively good. .(h) The sixth respondent has brought result in two subjects above 90 to 100%. The appellant has not even secured 100% result in any year, though he was in-charge of a single subject. .(i) Whenthe appellant was given the charge of the Headmaster during the year 1993-94 there were lot of problems and he was not able to administer the institution effectively as he has no control over the teachers, which also resulted in reduction of the result in tenth and plus two examinations. .(i) Whenthe appellant was given the charge of the Headmaster during the year 1993-94 there were lot of problems and he was not able to administer the institution effectively as he has no control over the teachers, which also resulted in reduction of the result in tenth and plus two examinations. .(j) There was no occasion for the School Committee to consider the merits of the sixth respondent as it was not placed before the Committee. Therefore the first respondent was duly justified in interfering with the selection and as such the School committee was in full agreement with the said decision. The Contention of sixth respondent: 8. The sixth respondent filed a separate counter justifying the order passed by the first respondent. The material contentions in the counter affidavit reads thus: .(a) The sixth respondent jointed the fifth respondent institution as Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce on 13. 1985. He was fully qualified to take classes for Higher Secondary Section. The appellant jointed the institution only on 16. 1985. .(b) The fifth respondent institution prepared a seniority list, which contains the name of the sixth respondent at S1. No. 1 and the appellant was only at S1. No. 5. .(c) The fifth respondent initiated steps for appointment of a Headmaster as the then Headmaster retired on 35. 2003. The post of Headmaster has to be filled up on merit and ability basis and when both the merit and ability are approximately equal, seniority has to be given preference. The fifth respondent was obliged to appoint the Headmaster in accordance with Run 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules (sic). .(d) The appellant as well as sixth respondent were having the required academic qualification as both of them have got M.Ed., and M.Phil., in the concerned subject. The only yardstick for assessment of merit and ability was the performance of students, as it was the reflecting mirror of the teacher. .(e) The sixthrespondent was taking classes in two subjects viz., Commerce and Accountancy, which are separate optional subjects for the Higher Secondary level, whereas the appellant was taking classes only in Physics. The only yardstick for assessment of merit and ability was the performance of students, as it was the reflecting mirror of the teacher. .(e) The sixthrespondent was taking classes in two subjects viz., Commerce and Accountancy, which are separate optional subjects for the Higher Secondary level, whereas the appellant was taking classes only in Physics. The subjects namely, Commerce and Accountancy are only theory papers and no practical marks were involved and therefore the students efficiency cannot be boosted, whereas in respect of Science subject, out of 200 marks, 50 was allotted for practical and the remaining 150 marks would go for theory. Therefore, invariably to help the students and also to boost the results, all the students in the Higher Secondary Level used to be given 50 out of 50 marks in practicals. .(f) In the commerce subjects taught by the sixth respondent, the students scored marks ranging from 97 to 99%, The students in the subject taught by the appellant got marks between 82% to 98%. Therefore, a reading of the results would go to show as to how the students have been taught by the concerned teachers, Judgment of the learned Judge: .9. The learned single Judge found that the appellant as well as sixth respondent were fully qualified for appointment as the Headmaster of the institution. The appellant was having Post Graduate qualification in more, than one discipline. However, that was not the relevant consi0deration for evaluating the merits of a candidate, for the purpose of appointment as Headmaster. According to the learned Judge, the School Committee without conducting any interview promoted the appellant as Headmaster, ignoring the academic qualification possessed by the sixth respondent in the relevant subject as well as the higher percentage of result in the subjects, in which he took classes. The only yardstick to measure the merit and ability was the performance of students. The sixth respondent was instrumental’ in getting higher percentage of results in the public examination, when compared to the students taught by the appellant and as such the sixth respondent alone was more meritorious. .10. As per Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, merit and ability coupled with seniority were the matters to be considered for promotion. The question of seniority would come into play, only in case, merit and ability were equal. .10. As per Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, merit and ability coupled with seniority were the matters to be considered for promotion. The question of seniority would come into play, only in case, merit and ability were equal. Insofar as the fifth respondent institution was concerned, it was only the sixth respondent, who was senior as his appointment was prior to the appellant. Therefore, the sixth respondent satisfies the seniority test also. Since the merit of the sixth respondent was not available with the School Committee, there was no occasion to decide the relative merits and as such, the selection of the appellant was not by way of evaluation of the relative merits. According to the learned Judge the revisional authority was justified n setting aside the selection of the appellant. The learned Judge found that the appellant continued as Principal on the basis of the interim order. Therefore, the learned Judge observed that after the retirement of the sixth respondent, the claim of the appellant has to be considered by the School Committee in the event of his seniors not claiming the post of Headmaster. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful writ petitioner is before this Court. Submissions: 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit; .(i) The appellant was more meritorious both on academic qualification as well as his performance as Post-graduate teacher. The appellant was having multiple degrees and Post-graduate qualifications as against the sixth respondent, who was having only the Post-graduation in the concerned subject. The appellant earlier functioned as Headmaster and therefore he was also having the practical experience as Headmaster. .(ii) The appellant was a teacher in two other institutions prior to his appointment in the fifth respondent institution. Though the appointment of the appellant in the fifth respondent institution was subsequent to the appointment of the sixth respondent, the fact remains that he was having more service than the appellant. The total service of the appellant as on the date he was selected was 19 years, 5 months and 1 day. However, the sixth respondent was having only 18 years and 2 months experience. Therefore, the revisional authority ignored the seniority while considering the challenge made by the sixth respondent to the selection in question. The total service of the appellant as on the date he was selected was 19 years, 5 months and 1 day. However, the sixth respondent was having only 18 years and 2 months experience. Therefore, the revisional authority ignored the seniority while considering the challenge made by the sixth respondent to the selection in question. (iii) The appointment of the appellant was regularized as P.G. Assistant with effect from 312. 1983. However the appointment of the sixth respondent was regularised only with effect from 13. 1985. Therefore the appellant was senior even on that count. .(iv) Merely because the students studying under the sixth respondent got more marks, it cannot be said that the sixth respondent was more meritorious. .(v) Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 provides that promotion shall be made on the basis of merit and ability and seniority being considered when merit and ability were approximately equal. The appellant was more meritorious and able and he was also senior to the sixth respondent. Therefore, he was rightly selected by the School Committee. .(vi) The School Committee fully supported the selection of the appellant when it was challenged before the appellate authority. Even before the revisional authority, they have taken a stand that the selection of the appellant was proper. Therefore, the revisional authority was bound to take note of the submissions made on behalf of the School Committee. (vii) The School Committee appears to have changed their stand only during the pendency of the writ petition. The Committee has now come out with a new theory that there was no interview as the full particulars of the other candidates were not available with the School Committee during the time of selection. Such a contention was taken only to help the sixth respondent. In the light of the contentions raised earlier by the School Committee, no credence could be given to the counter statement filed by the fifth respondent in the writ petition. 12. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 supported the order passed by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the sixth respondent was appointed as Headmaster after the dismissal of the writ petition and as such he is occupying the post. Appointment of the sixth respondent was duly approved by the Government. 12. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 supported the order passed by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, the sixth respondent was appointed as Headmaster after the dismissal of the writ petition and as such he is occupying the post. Appointment of the sixth respondent was duly approved by the Government. According to the learned counsel the appellant deliberately furnished false particulars to claim undue advantage in the matter of selection to the post of Headmaster and the School Committee was misled which was rightly rectified later. The learned counsel further contended that the sixth respondent was more meritorious than the appellant and there was no occasion for the school Committee to consider the relative merits of the parties on account of absence of details with respect to the sixth respondent and other applicants during the time of selection. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following judgments: .(i) S. Sethuraman v. R. Venkataraman (2007) 6 SCC 382 : (2007) 5 MLJ 449, .(ii) Murugeswari, A v. Director of School Education 2006 (3) CTC 103 : (2006) 3 MLJ 555 . Analysis: 14. The fifth respondent is a private Higher Secondary School governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) provides for constitution of a School Committee consisting of a representative of the Educational agency with Head Master of the School as its Ex-officio Member and three of the senior-most teachers of the School, besides a nominee of the Parent-Teacher association and the senior-most non-teaching staff. The educational agency has to nominate one of its representative as Secretary of the School Committee. Rule 15 provides for qualifications and conditions of service of teachers and other persons employed in the Private School. Rule 15(4) provides that promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal. 15. The necessity of appointment of a Headmaster in the fifth respondent institution has arisen on account of the retirement of the then Headmaster on 35. 2003. There were ten Post Graduate Assistants working in the fifth respondent institution qualified for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 16. The School Committee convened a meeting on 1. 15. The necessity of appointment of a Headmaster in the fifth respondent institution has arisen on account of the retirement of the then Headmaster on 35. 2003. There were ten Post Graduate Assistants working in the fifth respondent institution qualified for consideration for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 16. The School Committee convened a meeting on 1. 2003 for the purpose of selecting the Headmaster. The committee selected the appellant and issued an order of appointment on 11. 2003. Immediately the appellant assumed charge. The appointment of the appellant was challenged by the sixth respondent before the second respondent, being the appellate authority. Before the Appellate Authority, the School Committee justified the appointment of the appellant, as according to them, his merit was considered and he was found to be a meritorious candidate. Accordingly, the appellate authority confirmed the appointment of the appellant as Headmaster by rejecting the appeal. 17. The sixth respondent filed a revision petition before the first respondent invoking the revisional jurisdiction vested in the Government. Even before the revisional authority the School committee supported the cause of the appellant. However, the School Committee was not in a position to produce materials to substantiate their contention that a through evaluation of the relative merits of the appellant and the sixth respondent were taken and the selection of the appellant was only as a result of such scrutiny. The revisional authority found that merit was the prime consideration for promotion as Headmaster and the seniority was only secondary which would be taken note of only in case merit and ability are approximately equal. The revisional authority was of the view that the appellant joined the fifth respondent institution only after the appointment of the sixth respondent and as such he was junior. The revisional authority was of the view that there was no provision in the rules which gives preference to a person having more educational qualification that the required qualification for the post. The revisional authority opined that both the appellant and the sixth respondent were qualified for appointment as Headmaster. Since both the candidates were having merit and ability, there was a necessity to consider seniority and accordingly arrived at a finding that the selection of the appellant was bad. Accordingly, the appointment of the appellant as Headmaster was set aside. 18. The revisional authority opined that both the appellant and the sixth respondent were qualified for appointment as Headmaster. Since both the candidates were having merit and ability, there was a necessity to consider seniority and accordingly arrived at a finding that the selection of the appellant was bad. Accordingly, the appointment of the appellant as Headmaster was set aside. 18. When the matter was taken by way of a writ petition in W.P. No. 25002 of 2006, the School Committee filed a counter. In the said counter, they have taken a clear stand that they have assessed only the merit and ability of the appellant and there was no occasion to consider the relative merits of the sixth respondent for want of necessary particulars. The School Committee also submitted that the appellant projected a wrong picture as if he was senior to the sixth respondent and over looked the fact that it was only the sixth respondent, who was senior in so far as the fifth respondent institution was concerned. The School Committee also submitted that subsequent to the decision by the Government they have considered the matter and it was found that irrelevant materials were considered for giving promotion to the appellant and relevant materials were omitted to be considered. The School Committee was under the wrong impression that the factum of functioning as the Chief Superintendent of public examination by the appellant was in the nature of academic merit. Subsequently, it was found out that he functioned as Chief Superintendent only in the capacity of the Headmaster incharge of the institution. The Secretary of the School Committee also submitted that, being the lady she took every details furnished to the Committee for granted and that resulted in a wrong decision taken in favour of the appellant. It was also the contention of the Secretary of the School committee that when the appellant was incharge of the Headmaster during the year 1993-94, there were lot of problems and he was not in a position to administer the institution effectively and in fact, he has no control over the teachers which also resulted in reduction of the result in tenth and plus two examination. 19. 19. In fact, the Secretary openly admitted that there was no consideration of the relative merits of the candidates during the time of selection and the appellant’s case alone was considered and there was nothing like an interview in the matter of selection. 20. The learned single Judge considered the matter extensively in the light of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules made thereunder as well as the qualifications and other relative merits of the appellant as well as sixth respondent. The learned Judge found that the appellant joined the fifth respondent institution only on 16. 1985. Therefore the sixth respondent, who joined the institution on 13. 1985 was senior to him and as such, was of the view that due weight should have been given to seniority, it was only in such circumstances, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition approving the order passed by the first respondent. .21. There is no dispute that the School Committee has taken a supporting attitude to sustain the selection during the pendency of the proceedings before the first respondent. However when the revision was allowed and the selection of the appellant was set aside, the School Committee was convinced that no attempt was made by them to consider the relative merits of the appellant as well as the sixth respondent, though in the objection filed before respondents 1 and 2, the School committee justified the selection of the appellant. The Secretary filed a sworn affidavit in W.P. No.25002 of 2006. The counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the School Committee clearly shows that no attempt was made to assess the relative merits of the appellant as well as sixth respondent. The appellant has projected a case of seniority by opening a separate column in the note put up before the School Committee to appear as if he was senior to the sixth respondent. The appellant has also placed reliance on his multiple qualifications to claim that he was more meritorious than the sixth respondent. The Secretary of the School Committee in her counter affidavit has extensively dealt with the nature of selection and the qualification of the respective teachers and the result in the public examination in each of the subjects taught by the appellant as well as sixth respondent. 22. The Secretary of the School Committee in her counter affidavit has extensively dealt with the nature of selection and the qualification of the respective teachers and the result in the public examination in each of the subjects taught by the appellant as well as sixth respondent. 22. There is no dispute that the appellant as well as sixth respondent are having more or less equal merit in respect of qualification as well as performance. The appellant was the Headmaster incharge of the institution for a brief period. According to the School Committee, he was not in a position to manage the institution during the said period and there were student unrest and the result in the public examination during the particular year was also not satisfactory. 23. The post in question is the Head of the institution. The Headmaster occupies a pivotal position in the educational institution. He has to function as a teacher as well as an Administrator. Therefore, his past service as incharge of the Headmaster also assumes significance in a matter like this. When the School Committee has categorically stated that the appellant was not in a position to manage the institution during his tenure as Headmaster, there is no reason to disbelieve the said version. 24. It is truethat the School Committee has taken a hostile attitude against the sixth respondent during the initial point of time. Before the revisional authority the School Committee was not in a position to substantiate their contention that the selection was fair and transparent and there was occasion to assess the relative merits of the appellant as well as sixth respondent. No record was produced by the School Committee to show that they have made a comparative assessment of the merits and it was only after such assessment the appellant was selected. The counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the School Committee clearly shows that the appointment of the appellant was mainly on account of his seniority as the performance of the appellant and the sixth respondent in the School were more or less equal. 25. Promotion is essentially a management function. It is for the School Committee to assess the merits and ability of the respective candidates. The nature of function of the management being one of assessing the relative merits, it is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. The function is purely administrative in character. 25. Promotion is essentially a management function. It is for the School Committee to assess the merits and ability of the respective candidates. The nature of function of the management being one of assessing the relative merits, it is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. The function is purely administrative in character. The management is the best Judge to evaluate the past performance for deciding the merit and ability. It is open to the management to devise their own rules and procedure for such assessment. When there is no dispute with respect to the composition of the Selection Committee, it is not for Courts to adjudicate the assessment of comparative merits and ability of candidates and to substitute its opinion in the place of one formed by the Selection Committee. .26. The question of considering seniority would arise only in case merit and ability are approximately equal. Merely because the appellant was having the Post-Graduate qualification in many of the other subjects, it cannot be said that he was having better merit and ability. The management was bound to consider variety of factors for the purpose of deciding the merit and ability. However, nothing was produced before the statutory authorities as well as before this Court to demonstrate that an attempt was made by the School Committee to assess the relative merits and ability of the candidates. In such circumstances, the learned Judge was absolutely correct in placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the School Committee. 27. The appellant has made an attempt to dispute the observation made by the learned Judge that it was only the sixth respondent, who got better results for the institution. Even if the appellant as well as the sixth respondent succeeded in getting better results, it can only be said that both are having equal merit and ability. However, the management has got a grievance that during his tenure as Headmaster incharge, the appellant was not in a position to administer the institution. Since the post in question is Headmaster, the earlier unsuccessful service as Headmaster by the appellant would give him negative marks. Even if it is held that both the appellant as well as the sixth respondent are having equal merit and ability, there is no possibility of appointing the appellant as Headmaster, as in such a case, seniority assumes importance. Since the post in question is Headmaster, the earlier unsuccessful service as Headmaster by the appellant would give him negative marks. Even if it is held that both the appellant as well as the sixth respondent are having equal merit and ability, there is no possibility of appointing the appellant as Headmaster, as in such a case, seniority assumes importance. Since the appellant jointed the fifth respondent institution only at a later date, naturally, the sixth respondent who jointed earlier has to be treated as senior. The sixth respondent is also one year older to the appellant. The School being a private institution, the School Committee is the appropriate authority to make appointment. When the School Committee has categorically stated that there was no such interview for assessing the relative merits of candidates for the purpose of promotion as Headmaster, there is no reason to disbelieve their version merely on account of their taking a different stand before the statutory authorities. The statutory requirement for granting promotion was only to assess the merit and ability and in case both are approximately equal, to consider the seniority. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was more meritorious and able than the sixth respondent. Therefore, necessarily the seniority has to be given its own weight. The learned Judge has considered all these aspects in an extensive manner and answered each points raised by the appellant with reasons. 128. It is true that the management in their eagerness and anxiety to sustain the order promoting the appellant as Headmaster projected a case, as if the relative merits of the candidates were considered and the selection was fair. When they found that they were not in a position to substantiate their contentions with respect to the procedure adopted for considering the relative merits and ability of the candidates, they have revealed the correct facts by way of a counter affidavit in the writ petition. Though the appellant disputed the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the School Committee, he was not in a position to produce any material either before the learned Judge or in this appeal to demonstrate that a fair assessment was made by the School Committee while considering his merits vis-a-vis the sixth respondent. 129. Though the appellant disputed the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the School Committee, he was not in a position to produce any material either before the learned Judge or in this appeal to demonstrate that a fair assessment was made by the School Committee while considering his merits vis-a-vis the sixth respondent. 129. The learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Sethuraman v. R. Venkataraman (supra), contended that if two views are possible in a matter, ordinarily, the views of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail. According to the learned counsel, before the revisional authority, the management supported the impugned selection and as such the statutory authority was not bound to decide the revision in favour of the sixth respondent. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the observation of the Supreme Court in the said judgment with respect to the weight to be given for acquiring higher qualification. .30. In S. Sethuraman v. R. Venkataraman (supra) the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the appointment of the appellant therein as Headmaster by the management which was ultimately set aside by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court found that the selectee was having higher qualification and that was taken as a positive factor by the management. The Committee considered the merit and ability of the candidates and found the appellant as more meritorious. It was only in such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that if two views are possible, the views of the managing committee should be allowed to prevail. .31. In S. Sethuraman v. R. Venkataraman (supra) , the Supreme Court considered Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 and underlined the necessity of considering the merit and ability thus at p.455 of MLJ: .“16. The terms and conditions of service of the teachers of an aided school are governed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The terms and conditions of service of the teachers of an aided school are governed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Managing Committee of the school in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules are enjoined with a duty to fill up the post of Headmaster primarily on the basis of “merit and ability.” Indisputably, the Committee while appointing a person must take into consideration the merit and ability of the candidate alone and only when the respective merit and ability of two candidates are equal, seniority will have same role to play….” 132. In the case on hand, though the management initially supported the case of the appellant, there was nothing on record to support the view taken by the Managing Committee. In short, the School Committee themselves were not in a position to justify the selection by way of materials. Therefore the revisional authority having being appraised of the fact that the sixth respondent was senior and he was also having the merit and ability as well as qualification, set aside the selection of the appellant. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that views of the managing committee then presented before the revisional authority was not considered. .33. The difference between seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority was explained by the Supreme Court in K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Company Ltd AIR 2003 SC 4422 : (2004) 9 SCC 286 : JT (2003) Suppl (1) SC 400 thus: .“The principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit-sum-seniority are conceptually different. For the former, greater emphasis is laid in seniority, though it is not the determinative factor, while in the latter merit is the determinative factor.” 134. In K.K. Parmar v. H.C. of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 789 , the concept of merit was explained by the Supreme Court thus: “27. Merit of a candidate is not his academic qualification. It is sum total of various qualities. It reflects the attributes of an employee. He might have achieved certain distinction in the university. It may involve the character, integrity and devotion to duty of the employee. The manner in which he discharges his final duties would also be a relevant factor. (See Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan.) 28. For the purpose of judging the merit, thus, past performance was a relevant factor.” The Authorities: .35. It may involve the character, integrity and devotion to duty of the employee. The manner in which he discharges his final duties would also be a relevant factor. (See Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan.) 28. For the purpose of judging the merit, thus, past performance was a relevant factor.” The Authorities: .35. In Union of India v. Mohan Lai Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 : (1973) 2 SCC 836 : 1973-II-LLJ-504, the Supreme Court indicated the role of a Selection Committee in the matter of selection thus: .“ The Selection Committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed by service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor.” .36. In State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin, AIR 1987 SC 1889 : (1987) 4 SCC 486 : 1988-I-LLJ-142, the Supreme Court observed that competence of persons for promotion has to be decided only by the management. The observation reads thus: .“5. Whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of merit no officer can claim promotion to the higher post as a matter of tight by virtue of seniority alone with effect from the date on which his juniors are promoted. It is not sufficient that in his confidential reports it is recorded that his services are “satisfactory.” An officer may be capable of discharging the duties of the post held by him satisfactorily but he may not be fit for the higher post. Before any such promotion can be effected it is the duty of the management to consider the case of the officer concerned on the basis of the relevant materials. If promotion has been denied arbitrarily or without any reason ordinarily the Court can issue a direction to the management to consider the case of the officer concerned for promotion but it cannot issue a direction to promote the officer concerned to the higher post without giving an opportunity to the management to consider the question of promotion. There is good reason for taking this view. There is good reason for taking this view. The Court is not by its very nature competent to appreciate the abilities, qualities or attributes necessary for the task, office or duty of every kind of post in the modern world and it would be hazardous for it to undertake the responsibility of assessing whether a person is fit for being promoted to a higher post which is to be filled up by selection. The duties of such posts may need skills of different kinds- scientific, technical, financial, industrial, commercial, administrative, educational etc. The methods of evaluation of the abilities or the competence of persons to be selected for such posts have also become nowadays very much refined and sophisticated and such evaluation should, therefore, in the public interest ordinarily be left to be done by the individual or a committee consisting of persons who have the knowledge of the requirements of a given post, to be nominated by the employer. Of course, the process of selection adopted by them should always be honest and fair. It is only when the process of selection is vitiated on the ground of bias, mala fides or any other similar vitiating circumstances other considerations will arise.” .37. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 : (1990) 1 SCC 305 : 1990-II-LLJ-470, the Supreme Court indicated the limited role of Courts in the matter of assessment of comparatative merits of candidates. The relevant paragraph reads thus: .“12. …….it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fide affecting the selection etc. it is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through ail the relevant material before it. it is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through ail the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” .38. In Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N., AIR 2000 SC 3243 : (2000) 8 SCC 395 , the Supreme Court observed that Courts have only limited role to play in the matter of assessment of merit. The observation reads: .“58. (2) Courts will not interfere with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committees unless the aggrieved officer establishes that the non-promotion was bad according to Wednesbury principles or it was mala fide.” 39. In Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 753 , at page 756: (2009) 3 Scale 521 , the Supreme Court opined that the Administrative authorities are the best judges to decide the matter of promotion. The observation reads thus: “17. ……. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a Court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions.” Seniority: 40. The appellant claims that he was senior to the sixth respondent and therefore he was the natural choice for appointment to the post of Headmaster as both candidates were having equal merit and ability. 41. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the appellant was senior to the sixth respondent. The appellant was working in two other private institutions before his appointment in the fifth respondent institution. It was not a transfer or transfer of service by the Government on account of closure of an aided private institution. It was purely an option exercised by the appellant without any compulsion to leave the earlier institution and to join the fifth respondent school. He was fully aware that there were teachers already working in the fifth respondent School and he would be ranked only after them. It was purely an option exercised by the appellant without any compulsion to leave the earlier institution and to join the fifth respondent school. He was fully aware that there were teachers already working in the fifth respondent School and he would be ranked only after them. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that the seniority list has to be re-fixed whenever there was an appointment in the School in case the appointee was having qualifying service in the other institution. The seniority list finalised by the School Committee cannot be re-opened mechanically and as a routine manner to the detriment of the existing teachers of the institution. The appellant was placed at S1. No.5 in the seniority list of Post-Graduate Teachers and the sixth respondent was ranked first in the said list. It is open to the appellant to use his service in the other two institutions for the purpose of availing the service benefits including fixation of pension. When the question was one of consideration of seniority in the fifth respondent School, it was only the sixth respondent, who was virtue of his earlier appointment. Legal Position Regarding Transfer Of Service: 42. The Supreme Court in K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2138 : (2006) 5 SCC 386 : (2006) 3 MLJ 329: (2006) 6 Scale 92 , considered the question as to whether a Government servant, who was transferred on his own request to the service of another department, would retain his seniority in the transferred department. The Supreme Court indicated that it was not permissible for such employees to claim seniority in the department to which he was transferred. The observation reads thus at p. 333 of MLJ: “11. In service Jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of transfer and the period of service in the post before his transfer has to be taken into consideration in computing the seniority in the transferred post. But where a government servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will have to forgo his seniority till the date of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the juniormost employee in the category in the new cadre or department. This is because a government servant getting transferred to another until or department for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred, by claiming that his service in the transferred, should be taken into account. This is also because a person appointed to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects. The matter is, however, governed by the relevant service rules.” (emphasis supplied) Correction of Mistakes: 43. It is true that earlier the appellant v/as selected by the School Committee. The committee justified their decision before the statutory authorities. However, the School Committee was well aware that they have not assessed the relative merits of candidates. They have only considered the merit and ability of the appellant. There were no materials to show that the assessment was also made in respect of other candidates, including the sixth respondent. Therefore, the attempt of the School Committee was only to rectify the mistake and the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition indicates that the School Committee very politely admitted their mistakes and rectified the same. Legal Position Regading Correction of Mistakes: 44. In Union of India v. Narendra Singh (2008) 2 SCC 750 : (2007) 14 Scale 364, the Supreme Court held that mistake committed by the authorities can be corrected at a later point of time. The observation reads thus: “32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due procees of law. In Icar v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due procees of law. In Icar v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a Court of law cannot ignore statutory rules.” A Summary of our conclusions: 45. The appellant as well as sixth respondent were fully qualified for appointment as Headmaster. They were having the required qualification as per the statute. There is also no dispute with respect to the actual date on which the appellant as well as sixth respondent joined the fifth respondent institution for the purpose of deciding the question of seniority. The entire details are found mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent. There was a clear indication in the counter about the relative advantage of the sixth respondent over the appellant in terms of merit and ability. The sixth respondent was also senior and as such he was having all plus factors in his favour. All these aspects were considered in the writ petition and as such we are in full agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judge. 46. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge was perfectly correct in dismissing the writ petition. There is no merit in the appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 47. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.