He retired on 31st May, 2003 whereupon a vacancy to the said post occurred.
The School Committee appointed the first respondent in the post of Head Master.
We may also place on record that the appointment of the first respondent was number approved by the said Joint Director.
It is a private aided school within the meaning of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognition of Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 for short the Act .
However, it must also be numbericed that one of the allegations against the first respondent in the inspection reports filed by C.E.O. and D.E.O. was that he had never participated in the Parents Teachers Meeting, Independence Day Celebrations or any of the functions of the school.
The appellant preferred an intra companyrt appeal thereagainst which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been dismissed.
By an order dated 17th December, 2004 the appeal of the appellant was allowed.
The appellant as also the first respondent were number the seniormost teachers in the said school.
But as the first two seniormost teachers expressed their unwillingness to be the Headmaster of the school, the School Selection Committee companysidered the cases of the appellant and the first respondent only for appointment to the said post.
The first respondent secured five votes while the appellant secured four.
Inter alia companytending that he was more meritorious than the first respondent, the appellant preferred an appeal against the decision of the Selection Committee before the Joint Director of School Education.
The first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court questioning the said order of the Joint Director dated 17th December, 2004.
B, SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Indisputably the companyditions of service of the teachers of the said school are governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Parties hereto had been working in a school companymonly known as M.R.V. Higher Secondary School, Vadasery in the District of Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu.
The school adopted a policy of choosing the candidate by secret ballot.
By a detailed judgment both the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench took into companysideration the respective qualifications of the appellant as also the first respondent to opine that both the School Committee as also the Joint Director of Schools did number companysider the respective merits and abilities of the parties from all perspectives.
