A Dublin school must readvertise the post of principal after the High Court ruled that the board of management did not comply with agreed procedures when filling the post two years ago.
The court found that the Church of Ireland board of management at Rathfarnham parish school acted unlawfully and outside its powers in accepting a late application from the successful candidate, Joyce Perdue.
The proceedings were brought by Phyllis Brown, Sandyford Road, Dundrum, Dublin, who has been a deputy principal at Rathfarnham Parish National School for nearly 30 years. In a case heard in the High Court earlier this year, she challenged the legality of Ms Perdue's appointment.
Mr Justice John Quirke ruled against the board in June, but in a written ruling on the case circulated last week he instructed the board to readvertise the post. He also ruled that Ms Brown's legal costs - thought to be substantial - should be met by the board.
The court ruled that Ms Brown could, if she sees fit, submit a claim for damages in relation to the original appointment.
Ms Brown took her action against the board, the Department of Education and the school patron, Archbishop John Neill, but the High Court ruled that the Minister and the patron had no case to answer.
In June, the High Court heard that Ms Perdue's application was received on November 2nd, 2004 - even though the closing date had been November 1st.
It also found that contrary to procedures, applicants were not supplied with details of the established criteria for the post and the board did not receive a written report from the selection board.
The court heard that Ms Perdue is married to the brother- in-law of a management board member. The court said the board acted unlawfully and ultra vires in allowing a relative of the successful candidate to participate in the decision-making process.
Mr Justice Quirke ruled: "The evidence adduced in these proceedings suggests that the board was under the impression that the rules comprised rough guidelines, which, at the discretion of the board, could be applied in an ad-hoc manner. This is not the case. The application of the procedures is not a matter which is within the discretion of the board."
Ms Brown claimed the board of management acted unreasonably and oppressively in deeming the other person a valid candidate for appointment to the post.
She attended for interview on November 30th, 2004. Three hours later she was told she had been unsuccessful and the position had been awarded to another candidate.
The INTO has said Ms Brown deserves great credit for her courage in taking the case.
Responding to the original ruling in June, general secretary John Carr said the judgment "makes clear that the rules and constitution of boards of management have the force of law. Boards of management do not have the right to apply these rules as they see fit. Their application is not discretionary but mandatory."
In her affidavit to the High Court, Ms Brown said she was extremely disappointed with the appointment process. "After almost 30 years as a teacher. I expected more from both my employer and the department."
