A teacher working in a non-sanctioned post in a private minority school cannot claim the right to be appointed to a vacant permanent post solely on the basis of the bye-laws of the management, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled.
Justice K. Chandru said that the High Court could not issue a direction to enforce the bye-laws by exercising its writ jurisdiction as those laws were framed only as an internal arrangement by the religious societies that manage educational institutions.
Such bye-laws could not be enforced even in a civil court.
In case of breach of the bye-laws, which were in the nature of a contract between the members of the society, only damages could be claimed from the party responsible for the breach.
Further, the Supreme Court in N. Ammad Vs. Emjay High School (1998) had held that appointment of any person as a teacher, if he or she is qualified, in a minority school would be entirely at the discretion of the school management.
The apex court reiterated its stand in T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) wherein it was held that the management of a minority school must have the freedom to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff of their choice without any external interference.
In the present case, the petitioner claimed that she joined Little Flower Girls Higher Secondary School in Nagercoil as a mathematics teacher in an unsanctioned post and on a consolidated pay in August 1998.
The school was managed by the Immaculate Heart of Mary Provincialate based in Madurai.
She was made to believe for nearly 10 years that she would be absorbed in a regular vacancy, as and when it arises, as per the administration book titled ‘Puthuvai Mariannain Thuya Eruthaya Sabin Vazhi Nool' governing the institution.
However, when the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Maths) fell vacant in December 2007, the management chose to promote another teacher, who joined the school as a Graduate Assistant in 1999, to the vacancy and absorbed the petitioner in the regular vacancy created due to the promotion.
Not happy with the arrangement, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition claiming that the management could not promote her junior to a higher post when the petitioner herself was fully qualified to occupy the post of P.G. Assistant.
Disagreeing with her contention, the judge said that the teacher who was promoted to the post of P.G. Assistant had been holding a regular post of Graduate Assistant since 1999. “Therefore, there was no illegality in promoting her. The petitioner holding a non-sanctioned post all along cannot get any higher right than the other teacher,” he added.
