S. Rajendra Babu, J.— The second respondent is a recognised aided school of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Such schools are governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder. All the posts coming within the private schools are to be filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act or the Rules framed thereto. The management of the school appointed the first appellant as the Headmaster. The second respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the appellant's appointment. The Appellate Authority held that the appellant was not holding a post as PG Assistant which is the feeder category and, therefore, his appointment as Headmaster was bad and set aside the same. Against that order, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court and the learned Single Judge dismissed the same against which writ appeal was also filed. The concurrent view of the Appellate Authority and learned Single Judge or Division Bench of the High Court is that Respondent 2 is the seniormost Postgraduate Assistant and he belongs to the feeder category to the post of Headmaster; that he had been appointed as a Postgraduate Assistant on regular basis and had been holding the post of Assistant Headmaster; that the appellant is not a fully qualified Postgraduate Assistant; that he does not belong to the category of Postgraduate Assistant in academic subject or languages; and that he does not belong to the feeder category at all; that he is not entitled to be promoted as Headmaster ignoring the claim of the second respondent.
2. In order to find out whether the view taken by the High Court and the Tribunal is erroneous, it is necessary to examine the matter with reference to the relevant rules. Rule 15(4)(1)(d) provides that the post of Headmaster could be filled up only from amongst the categories stated therein and they are from the category of: (1) Headmasters of high schools; (2) Postgraduate Assistants in academic subjects; (3) Postgraduate Assistants in languages provided that they possess the prescribed qualifications. It cannot be seriously disputed that the appellant is not a Postgraduate Assistant and he does not come under the feeder category. Merely because he possesses the necessary qualifications by itself will not enable him to claim to be appointed as a Headmaster. It is on this basis the Appellate Authority, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellant is not entitled to be appointed as the Headmaster.
3. The claim made by the appellant is that he possesses Master's degree in History but he had not undergone the regular course but a condensed course conducted by the Department itself for a period of 10 months and his degree is conferred by way of certificate and such teachers are held to be not in the feeder category so as to become eligible to be appointed as Headmaster. Such arrangement of giving certificates to certain teachers became necessary as there was dearth of postgraduate teachers being available in the higher secondary schools such as that of the second appellant. Thus he becomes an inducted teacher and not a regular teacher in the cadre. Bearing these aspects in mind the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have taken a view, we do not find this matter calls for interference in a proceeding arising under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. Hence we dismiss this appeal.