Judgment 1. The petitioner and the 5th respondent were working as Secondary Grade Teachers under the 4th respondent school, which is an aided school. As against a vacancy caused for the post of Headmaster of the said school, the School Committee considered the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent, who are qualified. Ultimately, the school committee selected and appointed the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 17.04.2004 and a due proposal was submitted to the 2nd respondent seeking approval. But, the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10349/A2/05, dated 18.04.2006, rejected the said proposal and declined to give approval for the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress. As against the same, the Secretary of the School filed an appeal to the 1st respondent. Since the said appeal was not considered, the School Committee filed a writ petition in W.P.24217 of 2006, in which, this Court issued a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the said appeal. Accordingly, the 1st respondent, by his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.26954/G3/2004, dated 05.02.2007, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress was not approved at all. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and I have also perused the records, carefully. 3. Now that, admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. But, because of the pendency of the writ petition and because of her appointment as Headmistress was not approved, she was not given the monetary benefits arising out of the said appointment. Thus, the writ petition has not become infructuous. 4. Now, turning to the impugned order, the same states that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved because there was no examination of inter-se merit and ability between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the School Committee duly considered the inter-se merit and ability of both the parties and finally selected the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has got more educational qualification than the 5th respondent and that was one of the considerations in the mind of the School Committee. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has got more educational qualification than the 5th respondent and that was one of the considerations in the mind of the School Committee. Thus, the authorities were not right in declining to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress, the learned counsel contended. 5. But, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would stoutly oppose the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the 5th respondent is senior to the petitioner and in all respects, namely merit and ability, the 5th respondent is far better than the petitioner. But, however, there was no assessment of the inter-se merit and seniority and instead, the seniority of the 5th respondent and her merit were over-looked to give appointment to the petitioner as Headmistress, by favouring her. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent would further rely upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.Jeyaselvi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1994 1 MLJ 130 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that the order should reflect the consideration of merits and demerits of the candidates and the selection committee is required to state what are all the grounds on which a candidate is selected in preference to the other. In this case, since the same is not stated, the selection and appointment of the petitioner was not rightly approved, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent contended. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would support the contentions of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. As per Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, appointment to the post of Headmistress should be made based on merits and abilities of the candidate concerned. When there are two candidates within the zone of consideration, the inter-se merit and seniority should be considered. Further, as has been held by the Division Bench, the School Committee should state as to why one person has been selected in preference to the other. When there are two candidates within the zone of consideration, the inter-se merit and seniority should be considered. Further, as has been held by the Division Bench, the School Committee should state as to why one person has been selected in preference to the other. But, the Division has also made it clear that it is not necessary for the selection committee to pass a considered order and it would be suffice if the selection committee has stated what are those grounds on which a candidate is selected in preference to the other. 9. In the case on hand, according to the school committee, the petitioner was far better than the 5th respondent, comparatively, both in the matter of merit as well as in the matter of ability. So far as the merit is concerned, the petitioner possessed higher educational qualification. Therefore, she should be considered to have more merit than the 5th respondent. Coming to the question of ability, the school committee has stated that the ability is a matter to be closely watched and assessed from and out of the performance of the teachers. It is further stated by the School Committee that the performance of the petitioner and the 5th respondent were closely watched by the School Committee for years and finally from and out of that, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner has got more ability. In my considered opinion, this assessment is subjective in nature and the correctness of the same cannot be tested in an easy manner as there is no fixed measure or formula to measure it. Above all, the reasons for selection of the petitioner were all stated in the reply given by the School Committee to the Education Department. In view of the same, in my considered opinion, the respondents 1 and 2 were not right in declining to give approval. 10. It is brought to my notice that presently the 5th respondent is the in-charge Headmaster. In my considered opinion, it is for the school committee to promote her as Headmistress of the school, atleast now and to seek approval. 11. 10. It is brought to my notice that presently the 5th respondent is the in-charge Headmaster. In my considered opinion, it is for the school committee to promote her as Headmistress of the school, atleast now and to seek approval. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress of the 4th respondent school from the date of her appointment and pay all the monetary benefits to her. A consequential order in this regard shall be passed by the 2nd respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a coy of this order and the monetary benefits shall be settled to the petitioner within a further period of six months thereafter. It is further directed that the school committee shall consider the 5th respondent for promotion as Headmistress and appoint her as against the existing vacancy, if she does not suffer from any disqualification or there is no legal impediment and seek the approval of the authorities. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.