https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287024 Rule 15(4) requires promotion to Headmaster to be based on merit and ability, with seniority relevant only where candidates are approximately equal. The school committee's comparative assessment in favour of one candidate was displaced by the appellate authority and the High Court on considerations that were of limited or doubtful relevance, while material factors supporting the management's choice were ignored. On judicial review, interference is proper where the statutory authority relies on irrelevant considerations, omits relevant material, or acts in misdirection of law. The Supreme Court held that consent to re-examination did not authorise a decision contrary to the statutory scheme, and the impugned order and judgment were set aside with remand for fresh consideration. en-us Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:04:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287024 Rule 15(4) requires promotion to Headmaster to be based on merit and ability, with seniority relevant only where candidates are approximately equal. The school committee's comparative assessment in favour of one candidate was displaced by the appellate authority and the High Court on considerations that were of limited or doubtful relevance, while material factors supporting the management's choice were ignored. On judicial review, interference is proper where the statutory authority relies on irrelevant considerations, omits relevant material, or acts in misdirection of law. The Supreme Court held that consent to re-examination did not authorise a decision contrary to the statutory scheme, and the impugned order and judgment were set aside with remand for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287024