Selection process for national school principal was fair

Applicant is deputy principal of a national school - notice party was appointed principal of the school in February 2015 following a decision of the first named respondent - applicant is a failed candidate in the competition for appointment as principal and sought and was granted leave to challenge the notice parties appointment - affidavits were filed from a number of board members expressing dissatisfaction with the procedures followed by the selection board - post for principal was advertised nationally - board of management is established under section 14 of the Education Act 1998 - a selection board must be appointed for the purpose of a competition for the post of principal - the selection board must comprise of the chairperson of the board of management and at least two assessors independent of the board of management to be appointed by the patron - an appointment under the constitution of boards and rules of procedure 2011 could be amenable to judicial review - chairperson contacted the patron to discuss the appointment of the two independent assessors - eight applicants attended for interview - a set of questions encompassing criteria required was agreed by all three members of the selection board - former principal deposed that there was dismay from some board members that the best candidate had not been chosen - examination of Irish language proficiency of the candidates was not unfair or prejudicial - no breach of fair procedures with regards to certain aspects of the marking scheme for candidates answers - no particulars furnished by applicant of any alleged unreasonableness or irrationality in lack of explanation for selection decision - court must decide whether decision unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense - qualifications of candidates was a matter to be determined by the selection board - offer of appointment to notice party after ratification of boards decision by the patron was obtained within the rules - fair, reasonable and transparent procedure was followed by the selection board resulting in its recommendation - no basis upon which the board of management could have refused to ratify the appointment of the notice party - purpose and intention of the Education Act adequately reflected - independence of selection process is protected - decision is protected from unwarranted interference based on favouritism or otherwise - production of final marks of each candidate should have been supplied but this did not constitute a substantial non-compliance with the rules - the fact that the chairperson's sons were taught by the notice party for seven months did not constitute objective bias - no good reason submitted not to appoint the notice party - application refused.