Interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997, and the entitlement of the petitioner school to have at least 5 teachers for standards I to V.

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order, dated 18.09.2009, settling the staff fixation for the petitioner school in respect of the year 2009-2010, insofar as it relates to fixation of eligibility of the petitioner school for Secondary Grade Teachers as only four.

2. The case of the petitioner school is that it offers education from standards I to V. The total strength of the school is 178. There are five teachers working in the petitioner School Headmaster, and four Secondary Grade Teachers. According to the new norms, the petitioner school was eligible for five Secondary Grade Teachers, on the basis of the student-strength and the number of standards/classes. However, the first respondent, by his proceedings, rendered one post of Secondary Grade Teacher as surplus. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 11353 of 2008. This Court, by order, dated 12.12.2008, while setting aside the staff fixation, directed the respondents to approve the appointment of Rev. Sr. S. Mocharakini as Secondary Grade Teacher from the date of her appointment. As the said order of this Court was not complied with, a Contempt Petition came to be filed and the same is pending. Thereafter, the first respondent, while settling the annual staff fixation, for the year 2009-2010, by his proceedings, dated 18.09.2009, under the pretext of applying the new norms under G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997, fixed that the petitioner school is entitled to have only four Secondary Grade Teachers.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner school submits that it is not disputed that the petitioner school has been granted recognition with aid. Based on the assessment of the strength of the school only, additional posts were sanctioned. He further submits that the impugned staff fixation order passed by the first respondent is in violation of the norms fixed by the Government, in G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997. The said Government Order was issued superseding the earlier norms, fixing teacher-pupil ratio issued in G.O. Ms. No. 250, Education Department, dated 29.02.1964, and the said Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997, is held applicable to both the Government and Aided Recognized Private Schools.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel makes reliance upon the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others vs. S. Vigila and another, 2006 (5) CTC 385. By virtue of the said Judgment, each class shall have a teacher compulsorily based on the students-teachers ratio, which has been propounded by the Government of India as a National Policy, and therefore, on any account, there cannot be any reduction in staff strength particularly, when the petitioner schools is maintaining the students strength uniformly. Hence, declaring the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as surplus is unsustainable.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the number of teachers was in excess for the year 2009-2010, as the strength of the students had fallen down, and therefore, the first respondent passed the impugned proceedings, fixing that the petitioner school is entitled to have only four Secondary Grade Teachers, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

6. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.

7. The Full Bench of this Court in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others vs. S. Vigila and another, 2006 (5) CTC 385, giving interpretation to G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997, in a meaningful manner, in Paragraph No. 23, held as follows:-

"23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O. Ms. No. 525, dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner:

1.