Can the educational authorities under the Kerala Education Act and Rules reduce the number of class divisions and cancel the post of School Assistant in an Aided School in midstream during the academic year? This is the short question raised by the petitioner in this Original Petition. A brief reference to the essential facts is necessary to consider this issue.

2. The petitioner is stated to be working as Lower Primary School Assistant in the aided school under the management of respondent No.3. She states that she is a Rule 51-A claimant as provided under Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.

3. By Ext.P1 proceedings of the Asst. Educational Officer, Thodupuzha dated July 30, 1993, the staff strength and class divisions in St. Peter’s U.P. School for the academic year 1993-94 were fixed. The staff fixation was done by respondent No.2 after visiting the school on June 28, 1993. Two divisions were sanctioned of Standard III since it was found that the roll strength was 52. But later it was reported by the Headmaster of the school that three students from Standard III had left the school after obtaining Transfer Certificates. Consequently, a re-visit was held by the Educational Officer concerned. On verification of the roll strength in Standard III, it was found that there were only 49 students. The relevant records were also perused by the Educational Officer. He was satisfied that the Headmaster of the school had purposefully admitted three students from another school to increase the roll strength at the time of his first visit in order to get an additional division in Standard III. After staff fixation, these three student were given Transfer Certificates to re-join their previous institutions. Therefore the Educational Authority was of the view that the division and staff strength in the school had to be re-fixed. The Manager, Headmaster and the teacher who was likely to be affected (petitioner) were afforded an opportunity of being heard. It was thereafter that Ext.P2 order dated January 31, 1994 was issued by respondent No.2 abolishing one of the two divisions in Standard III. It was further ordered that one post of LPSA be cancelled and the junior most teacher in the primary section be removed from service. A revision petition was filed by the Manager of the school (respondent No.3) before the Government against the above order. The Government, by Ext.P5 order dated January 28, 1995 upheld the order of the Asst. Educational Officer. The contention of the Manager that the Educational Officer had no statutory right or authority to reduce one division in Standard III and also to cancel one post of LPSA in the school for the academic year 1993-94 was rejected. In this Original Petition the prayer is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2 and P5 orders. There is a further prayer for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service in the school and to get salary as Lower Primary School Assistant with effect from June 7, 1993 onwards.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is contended that Ext.P2 order was passed strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 15 of chapter XXIII K.E.R. It is further stated that at the time when the Educational Officer visited the school for staff fixation, there were 52 students in Standard III. Therefore, two divisions were sanctioned in Standard III for the academic year 1993-94. Later, the Headmaster of the school had reported that three students from Standard III had left the school. A “re-visit” was held on December 22, 1993. It was found that the roll strength in Standard III had come down to 49. Therefore, the number of divisions in Standard III had to be reduced. Accordingly, one division was reduced. On the reduction of division, the number of LPSA had also to be reduced. It was, thus, that Ext.P2 order was issued reducing the number of divisions as well as the staff strength. It is also stated that the re-v