In $2008$ and $2009,$ the governing bodies of Welkom High School and Harmony High School, respectively, adopted pregnancy policies that prohibited pregnant learners from attending school during certain periods. Subsequently, the Head of Department $($HOD$)$ directed the principals of these schools to readmit two learners who had been excluded under these policies. The schools sought an interdict in the High Court to prevent the HOD from interfering with their policies by ordering the readmission of the learners. The High Court granted the interdict, and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The HOD subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court, which dismissed the appeal. The Constitutional Court reasoned that the HOD$$s supervisory authority had to be exercised by the Schools Act. However, since the HOD had overridden the school policies without adhering to the procedural requirements set out in the Schools Act, his actions were deemed unlawful. Consequently, the High Court$$s interdict was upheld. The Constitutional Court further noted that the schools$$ pregnancy policies, as they stood, infringed upon the constitutional rights of pregnant learners. These rights included the right to human dignity, freedom from unfair discrimination, and the right to receive a basic education. The Court ordered that the schools review their policies to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the Schools Act. The judgment mandated that the parties engage in a meaningful review process, guided by the principles of cooperative governance as outlined in the Schools Act. This process had to prioritise the best interests of the learners and had to be aligned with the constitutional and legal requirements. Extracts: Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Another; Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Harmony High School and Another $($CCT $103/12)[2013]$ ZACC $25$; $2013(9)$ BCLR $989($CC$)$; $2014(2)$ SA $228($CC$)(10$ July $2013)4\mathrm{.}1$ What are the key responsibilities of the HOD, according to the Schools Act? $(2$ marks$)4\mathrm{.}2$ Provide an example of a situation where the HOD$$s role is critical in school governance. $(3$ marks$)4\mathrm{.}3$ How did the HOD fail to comply with the procedures outlined in the Schools Act? $(5$ marks$)4\mathrm{.}4$ How did the Court$$s ruling address the schools$$ policies specifically? $(5$ marks$)$