IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition Nos.3329 and 18210 of 2003 W.P.No.3329 of 2003:- G.R.M.Girls Higher Secondary School, represented by its Secretary & Correspondent, Thiruvarur. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai- 600 006. 3.Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, P.G. Assistant, G.R.M. Girls Higher Secondary School Thiruvarur. ... Respondents W.P.No.18210 of 2003:- Tmt.R.Rathinakumari, Headmistress, G.R.M. Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarur. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai- 600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Secretary and Correspondent, G.R.M. Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvarur. 4.Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, P.G. Assistant, G.R.M. Girls Higher Secondary School Thiruvarur. ... Respondents Writ Petition No.3329 of 2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.27 School Education (VE) Department, dated 28.1.2003 and quash the order passed therein and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval for the selection and appointment of Tmt.Rathinakumari as Headmistress of the petitioner school with effect from 30.4.2001 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. Writ Petition No.18210 of 2003 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.27 School Education (VE) Department, dated 28.1.2003 and quash the order passed therein and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval for the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 30.4.2001 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. For Petitioner in W.P.No.3329 of 2003 and 3rd respondent in W.P.No.18210 of 2003 : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Petitioner in W.P.No.18210 of 2003 : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents 1 & 2 in both W.Ps. : Mr.A.Suresh, Government Advocate For 3rd respondent in W.P.No.3329 of 2003 and 4th respondent in W.P.No.18210 of 2003 : Mr.C.Selvaraju, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Mani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER Writ Petition No.3329 of 2003 is filed by the school Management to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.27 School Education (VE) Department, dated 28.1.2003 and quash the order passed therein and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval for the selection and appointment of Tmt.Rathinakumari as Headmistress of the petitioner school with effect from 30.4.2001 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. 2. Writ Petition No.18210 of 2003 is filed by the selected Headmistress to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.27 School Education (VE) Department, dated 28.1.2003 and quash the order passed therein and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval for the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress with effect from 30.4.2001 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. 3. Since the prayer in both the writ petitions are one and the same, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed off by this common order. 4. For the sake of convenience, Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, the third respondent in W.P.No.3329 of 2003 and the fourth respondent in W.P.No.18210 of 2003 is referred to as "the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari". Tmt.R.Rathinakumari, the petitioner in W.P.No.18210 of 2003 is referred to as "the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari". The G.R.M.Girls Higher Secondary School, the petitioner in W.P.No.3329 of 2003 and the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.18210 of 2003 is referred to as "the petitioner School". 5. The brief facts for disposal of both the writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner School is a recognised private school within a meaning of Section 2(7) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The regular incumbents in the post of Headmistress in the school, demitted office on 30.4.2001 on voluntary retirement. To fill up the said vacancy, the School Committee invited applications from eligible candidates. 3 P.G. Teachers including the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, submitted their applications. Since the appointment to the post of Headmistress is a promotion by selection in terms of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, the School Committee called for an interview from eligible candidates. In the said interview, written test followed by oral interview was held on 29.4.2001. In the above test, the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, secured 223.5 marks; the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari, secured 352 marks and one Tmt.Mangalam secured 151 marks. Based on the comparative merit, the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tmt.R.Rathinakumari was selected to be appointed to the post of Headmistress. An appointment order dated 30.4.2001 was issued and she took charge on 1.5.2001. The third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, filed an appeal to the Joint Director, the second respondent in both the writ petitions. The second respondent Joint Director passed an order dated 14.5.2002 accepting the appeal of the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari and rejected the appointment of the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari. The petitioner school filed revision petition to the first respondent under Section 45 of the Act. The first respondent by order dated 28.1.2003 rejected the revision filed by the petitioner school. The order dated 28.1.2003 reads as follows:- "3. jpUthU:h; $p/Mh;/vk;/bgz;fs; nky;epiyg;gs;sp eph;thfj;jhy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l kW Ma;t[ kDtpy; eilKiwapy; cs;s tpjpfSf;Fk; epahaj;jpw;Fk; Vw;g[ila fhuz';fs; vJkpy;iy/ KJfiy Mrphpah; gzp K:g;g[ epiyapy; Kjpatuhf cs;sstUk; nkw;fhQqk; gs;spapy; cjtp jiyik Mrphpiaahft[k; cs;s jpUkjp o/tp$anrfhp kPJ ve;j xU xG';F Kiw eltof;ifa[k; epYitapy; , y;yhj epiyapYk;. md;dhUf;F ve;j xU jz;lida[k; mspf;fg;gl;ljhf jfty; VJk; ,y;yhj epiyapYk;. mtiutpl gzpK:g;g[ epiyapy; (seniority) ,isatuhd jpUkjp Mh;/,uj;jpdFkhhp mth;fis gs;sp eph;thfk; jiyikahrphpiaahf epakpj;jJ rhpay;y vd;gjhy;. gs;spf; fy;tp ,iz ,af;Feh; (nkepf) mth;fspd; bray;Kiwfs; K:/K/vz; 62297-lgps;a[8/2001 ehs; 14/5/2001I cWjp bra;Jk; ghh;it 1?y; gof;fg;gl;l gs;sp jhshshpd; 29/5/2002 ehspl;l kW Ma;t[ kDtpid (revision petition) epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd;Wk; muR KobtLj;Js;sJ vd;Wk;. mk;Kotpd; kPJ jkpH;ehL m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l jdpahh; gs;spfs; Kiwg;gLj;Jk; rl;lk; gphpt[ 45(2) d;go nkny K:d;wpy; gof;fg;gl;l muR fojj;jpy; tpsf;fk; nfl;fg;gl;lJ/ kW Ma;t[ kDjhuh; nkny ehd;fpy; gof;fg;gl;l fojj;jpy; tpsf;fk; mspj;Js;shh;/ ,t;tpsf;f';fs; Vw;fdnt kW Ma;t[ kDtpy; Twg;gl;L murhy; Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;litahfnt cs;sd/ jpUkjp Mh;/,uj;jpdFkhhp vd;ghiu nky;epiyg;gs;sp jiyik Mrphpauhf epakpg;gjw;F tpjpfspd;go Vw;Wf;bfhs;sf; Toa g[jpa fuuz';fs; VJk; Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy/ nkYk; nkw;fhQqk; fojj;jpy; gs;spr; brayh; mth;fs; neh;Kf nfl;g[iu mspf;FkhW nfl;Lf; bfhz;lhh;/ nkny gof;fg;gl;l 5?y; cs;s muR fojj;jpy; gs;spf; fy;tpj;Jiw brayh; Kd;. gs;sp brayhsUf;F neh;Kf nfl;g[iu mspf;fg;gl;lJ/ tHf;Fiu"h; tp/uhkRg;gpukzpad; kw;Wk; jpUthU:h; $p/Mh;/vk;/bgz;fs; nky;epiyg;gs;sp brayhsh; kw;Wk; jhshsh; 7/1/2003 md;W neh;Kf nfl;g[iuf;F M$uhdhh;fs;/ mg;bghGJ hpl; kD vz; 21235-94 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ kw;Wk; hpl; kD vz; 10648-94?d; kPjhd brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w Mizapd; efy; $p/Mh;/vk;/bgz;fs; nky;epiyg; gs;sp brayhsuhy; jug;gl;L mjpy; jkpH;ehL m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l jdpahh; gs;spfs; Kiwg;gLj;Jk; tpjpfs; 1974?y; tpjp 15 cl;gphpt[ 4(i)d;go jFjp kw;Wk; jpwikapd; mog;gilapy; gs;spf;FG vGj;Jj; njh;t [ mog;gilapy; jiyik Mrphpah; epakdk; jug;gl;Ls;sJ vd neh;Kf nfl;g[iuapy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;fhQqk; tpjpapy; gjtp cah;t[ jFjp kw;Wk; jpwikapd; mog;gilapy; mspf;f ntz;Lk; vdt[k;. jpwik kw;Wk; jFjp xnu khjphpahf ,Ue;jhy; gzpK:g;g[ epiy ghprPypf;fyhk; vd cs;sJ/ nkw;fhQqk; gs;spapy; vGj;Jj; njh;t[ K:yk; Mrphpah;fspd; jpwd; kw;Wk; jFjp kjpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nky;epiyg; gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah;. gjtp cah;t[ K:yk; epakdk; bra;a[k; bghGJ Mrphpahpd; fw;gpf;Fk; mDgtKk; mth; nghjpf;Fk; ghlj;jpy; mwpt [ jpwikia itj;J jFjp kw;Wk; jpwik kjpg;gpl ntz;Lk;/ Mjyhy; vGj;J njh;t[ K:yk; jFjp kw;Wk; jpwikia eph;zak; bra;J. gzpK:g;gpy; ,isatuhd jpUkjp Mh;/,uj;jpdFkhhp vd;ghiu gs;sp eph;thfk; jiyik Mrphpiaahf epakdk; bra;jJ rhpay;y/ ,jw;F chpa tpjpfspy; ,lkpy;iy/ 4/ ,e;epiyapy; jpUthU:h; $p/Mh;/vk;/bgz;fs; nky;epiyg; gs;sp brayhsh; kw;Wk; jhshsh; mth;fspd; ghh;it 1?y; gof;fg;gl;l kW Ma;t[ kD kw;Wk; md;dhuJ bjhlh; tpsf;f';fs; kw;Wk; ,g;bghUs; bjhlh;ghf gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;FehplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l Mtz';fs; kw;Wk; bjhlh;g[ila tptu';fisa[k; ed;F ghprPypj;J nkny gj;jp 3?y; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s fhuz';fspd; mog;gilapy; ghh;it xd;wpy; gof;fg;gl;l $p/Mh;/v;k;/bgz;fs; nky;epiyg; gs;sp brayhsh;-jhshshpd; kW Ma;t[ kDtpid epuhfhpj;J. gs;spf; fy;tp ,iz ,af;Feh; (nkepf) mth;fspd; bray; Kiwfs; K:/K/vz; 62297-lgps;a[8-2000 ehs; 14/5/2002?I cWjp bra;Jk; muR MizapLfpwJ/ The revision petition filed by the petitioner school was rejected and the order of the Joint Director of School Education was confirmed. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner school filed W.P.No.3329 of 2003 and the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari filed W.P.No.18210 of 2003 for the above stated reliefs challenging the order of the Government and for consequential relief. 7. Rule 15(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, which is relevant for adjudication of the present issue, reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (4)(i) Promotion shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal." 8. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.C.Selvaraju appearing for the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, who has the benefit of the order of the Joint Director of School Education and the Government, made the following submissions:- (i) The third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, is a senior in service to that of the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari, who has been chosen to the post of Headmistress. Therefore, the seniority should be given due weight-age even though the rule provides for merit and ability. (ii) The School Committee called for an interview and the Selection Committee without any prior intimation conducted a written test. The third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, was not informed that in the course of interview she will be subjected to written test. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee is arbitrary and bad. He relied upon the following Apex Court's decisions:- (a) Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission – vs. - B.Swapna reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 154 wherein the Apex Court held in para 15 as follows:- "15. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984)2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214)] this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised." (b) K.Manjusree - vs. - State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 512 wherein it has been held in para 33 as follows:- "33. The Resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribed any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview." (c) In Hemani Malhotra - vs. - High Court of Delhi reported in (2008)7 Supreme Court Cases 11, the Apex Court held that the minimum marks for viva voce prescribed after written test was over, to be incorrect. The Apex Court in para 15 held as follows:- "15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva voice test was illegal." (iii) Since the written test has not been duly informed to the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, the marks given by the Selection Committee in the written test have to be eschewed for considering the merit of the rival candidates. (iv) Learned senior counsel for the third respondent T.Vijayasekari, referred to the comparative statement of marks of the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari; the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari and the another candidate and stated that it had not been properly assessed. The manner in which the marks had been granted is arbitrary and very casual. Further, the Selection Committee has shown undue favouritism to the selected candidate, the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari by granting higher marks. Therefore, the selection of the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari is tainted by bias and prejudice. The seniority of the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari has not been considered at all. The other academic excellence of the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari has been totally ignored. (v) On these premises, it was pleaded by the learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari that the order of the Appellate Authority, the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) is justified and rightly confirmed by the Government and prayed for dismissing the two writ petitions. 9. On the other hand, Thiru R.Thiyagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the management, the petitioner school and Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the selected candidate, the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari challenges the order of the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) on the following grounds:- (i) The impugned order is a non-speaking order, without application of mind. The Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted (ii) The Joint Director of School Education while passing the order failed to consider the following aspects:- The third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari has served the petitioner institution only as an English Secondary Grade Teacher from 29.12.1978 and she has acted as Assistant Headmistress only briefly. The District Educational Officer, Thiruvarur has stated that the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari has performed well as a teacher in the subject, viz., English by showing good results. In the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ manner the petitioner school Secretary has also given commendation of the merit of the third respondent, Tmt.T.Vijayasekari and she is the senior. The Joint Director of School Education considering all these aspects allowed the appeal of the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari. Except the above factors, there is no reason given by the Joint Director of School Education to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee selecting the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari as Headmistress. (iii) The Joint Director has not given any reason why he is differing with the views of the Selection Committee who selected the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari after taking into consideration her merits, ability and also the performance in the interview conducted by the Selection Committee. The petitioner School aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director filed the Revision to the Government. Various infirmities were pointed out in the revision petition filed against the order of the Joint Director of School Education. It was primarily pointed out that in terms of Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rule, 1974, merit and ability has to be primarily considered in the process of selection and when both merit and ability are the same, the seniority will have to be taken into consideration. The third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari though made a complaint with regard to the written test, had participated in the same without prejudice. This has not been considered by the competent authority, the Joint Director of School Education. The Government on its turn passed the order as follows:- "According to the Government, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Headmistress, the experience of the teacher in the subject to which the said teacher is teaching has to be considered for the purpose of determining merit and ability. The selection of the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari as Headmistress by conducting written test to determine the merit and ability is not correct. There is no provision under the rules for the same." This appear to be the only point for the Government to concur with the findings of the Joint Director of School Education rejecting the revision petition and not approving the selection of the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari as Headmistress. (iv) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner school relied upon the decision in G.Annamalai – vs. - Secretary and Commissioner, Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (1) CTC 462 to state that there is no arbitrariness in the selection process and that the School Committee had an overall view of the merits of the rival candidates before selecting the teacher Tmt.R.Rathinakumari for the post of Headmistress. Para 14 of the decision reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "14. It could be seen from the counter affidavit that on 13.5.1985, the School Committee assessed the merit and ability of all the six candidates including that of the appellant and also the past conduct of the appellant including the punishment imposed. According to the management, the appellant is not fit to be promoted as Headmaster of the School and it is the decision taken by the School Committee, who is the competent authority under the Act. A similar issue arose before a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in S.P.Jalaja v. Karapetta Nadar Girl Higher Secondary School & Ors., 2002 WLR 81 wherein almost in identical circumstances the appellant therein was not given promotion as Headmistress, which was also challenged by the appellant repeatedly and ultimately the Division Bench in para 15 upheld the contention of the School Committee that merit and ability of all the candidates were assessed and the appellant therein was found not suitable. The Division Bench in para 15 held as follows, "..... As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the School committee also took into account the entire service career of the candidates who had applied for the higher post. The Headmistress of the School occupies an unique position and she is the linchpin around and the school activities revolve around her and she should have full confidence of the teachers, pupils, school authorities and must have administrative control, managerial skill, financial control over the funds of the school and she must secure full and unstinted co-operation from teachers and pupils for the past performance of the school. Needless to mention, any deficiency on the part of the Headmistress would reflect not upon the individual members, but would reflect on the institution itself." (v) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner school also referred to paras 16 and 17 of the Apex Court's decision in Sethuraman – vs.- R.Venkataraman and others reported in (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 382 to state that the view of the Managing Committee will have to be considered primarily for selection to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the post of Headmistress. Paras 16 and 17 read as follows:- "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 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 some role to play. Respondent 1 is senior to the appellant only by 13 days. At the relevant point of time, the appellant had passed the prescribed Account test for Headmasters conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1989. Before us various other factors have been placed for the purpose of showing that apart from the fact that the appellant was more qualified, Respondent 1 having regard to his past services should not have been considered suitable for appointment to the said post." "17. While exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate authority has indisputably a plenary power. It may not only consider the respective educational qualifications and other activities of the respective candidates for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to which of the two candidates had better merit and ability, but it should exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the views of the Managing Committee. If two views are possible, ordinarily, the view of the Managing Committee should be allowed to prevail." (vi) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner school further relies upon the unreported decision in W.P.No.13017 of 2008 dated 23.12.2008 (R.Rajanarayanan – vs. - Joint Director of School Education, (Secondary Education), Chennai-600 006). 10. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings for the following reasons:- (i) Insofar as the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee is concerned, the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, cannot have a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grievance that the written test was conducted without notification for the simple reason that the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari had participated the same without demur along with all other candidates. (ii) Assuming for a moment that the written test marks should be eschewed for the purpose of considering the rival merits, on going through the comparative merits of the candidates in the statement of marks, which has been enclosed in the typeset of papers, the total marks earned by the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari, is well above the marks of the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari, even if the marks for the written test is excluded. (iii) The comparative statement of marks produced in the present case takes into consideration, several factors, viz., merit, ability, knowledge, personality, presence of mind, leadership qualities, management qualities, marks given in the interview, general impression, etc. In the overall assessment, the petitioner Tmt.R.Rathinakumari scored well above the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari. Several parameters have been taken into consideration while considering the merit of the rival candidates. The procedure adopted by the Selection Committee to assess the merit is in accordance with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.P.Jalaja – vs. - Karapettai Nadar Girls Higher Secondary School & others reported in 2002 WLR 81. The Division Bench in the said case held as follows:- "..... As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the School committee also took into account the entire service career of the candidates who had applied for the higher post. The Headmistress of the School occupies an unique position and she is the linchpin around and the school activities revolve around her and she should have full confidence of the teachers, pupils, school authorities and must have administrative control, managerial skill, financial control over the funds of the school and she must secure full and unstinted co- operation from teachers and pupils for the past performance of the school. Needless to mention, any deficiency on the part of the Headmistress would reflect not upon the individual members, but would reflect on the institution itself." (iv) The School Committee called for an interview and the three eligible candidates were uniformly subjected to the written test as well as other assessment test. There is no arbitrariness or discrimination in respect of one or other candidates. Therefore, the third respondent Tmt.T.Vijayasekari cannot have a grievance in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the manner by which the interview was conducted. 11. The three decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the third respondent Tmt.Vijayasekari does not apply to the facts of the present case for the following reasons:- (i) In the case of B.Swapna (cited supra), the ratio laid down by the Apex Court is that the norms of selection cannot be altered after commencement of selection process. In the present case, no norms have