Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 990
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Correspondent, Devi Higher Secondary School, Kunnamgal
Versus
Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil & Another
W.P. (MD) No. 1629 of 2009
Decided On : 03-06-2014
For the Petitioner:Isaac Mohanlal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997, allows for the sanctioning of more teachers based on the strength of the school, and the appointment of teachers should not be disturbed based on fluctuations in student numbers.
Headnote:
Surplus - Staff Fixation in School - G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997 - Summary of Acts and Sections: G.O. Ms. No. 525 - The judgment discusses the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 525, which primarily considers the ratio of students-teacher strength, the minimum strength of teachers required, and the creation of additional sections based on student strength. The court emphasizes that the purpose of maintaining the ratio of 1:40 is to sustain the quality of education and that the appointment of teachers should not be disturbed based on fluctuations in student numbers. The judgment sets aside the impugned orders and directs the re-fixation of staff strength by approving the appointment of Mrs. M.R. Shiju Rajan as B.T Assistant and releasing grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner school challenges the orders rendering one post of BT Assistant as surplus and seeks approval for the appointment of Tmt. M.R. Shiju Rajan as the second BT Assistant. The school contends that the staff fixation orders are in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 525, School Education [D1] Department, dated 29.12.1997, and that the appointment of Mrs. M.R. Shiju Rajan should not be treated as surplus.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the impugned orders are unsustainable as they contravene G.O. Ms. No. 525 and the dictum laid down by the Full Bench. It directs the respondents to re-fix the staff strength by approving the appointment of Mrs. M.R. Shiju Rajan as B.T Assistant and release the grant-in-aid towards her salary and other allowances.
Issues: The issues revolve around the surplus declaration of a BT Assistant post in the petitioner school, the interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 525, and the entitlement of the school to have additional teachers based on student numbers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that the purpose of maintaining the ratio of 1:40 is to sustain the quality of education and that the appointment of teachers should not be disturbed based on fluctuations in student numbers. It interprets G.O. Ms. No. 525 to allow for the sanctioning of more teachers based on the strength of the school and sets aside the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the respondents are directed to re-fix the staff strength by approving the appointment of Mrs. M.R. Shiju Rajan as B.T Assistant and release the grant-in-aid towards payment of salary and other allowances due to her.
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the orders, dated 08.12.2007 and 18.10.2008, rendering one post of BT Assistant as surplus in the petitioner school and for a direction to the second respondent - District Educational Officer to approve the appointment of Tmt. M.R. Shiju Rajan, as the second BT Assistant in the petitioner school, with effect from 04.06.2007 and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary and allowances.
2. The case of the petitioner school is that it offers education from standards VI to XII. The total strength of the school is 366. There are 12 teachers [1 Headmistress, 7 PG Assistants, 2 BT Assistants and 2 Secondary Grade Teachers]. On account of retirement of the then incumbent, Tmt. Y. Premavathy, with effect from 31.05.2007, one Tmt. M.R. Shiju Rajan was appointed as BT Assistant, with effect from 04.06.2007. The petitioner school forwarded a proposal to the second respondent, on 14.08.2007, seeking to disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary. However, by the impugned orders, the first respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner school holding that one post of BT Assistant is surplus.
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 orders passed by the first respondent are 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 BT Assistant as surplus is unsustainable.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner school is entitled to have 5 teachers for standard VI to X alone for the year 2007 - 2008. During the free hours, the High School teachers were taking classes for higher secondary students and upon retirement of one Tmt. Y. Premavathy, on 31.05.2007, Mrs. M.R. Shiju Rajan was appointed as B.T Assistant with effect from 04.06.2007, and therefore, the respondents cannot treat the appointment of Mrs. M.R. Shiju Rajan as surplus, and hence the staff fixation for the year 20072008 is bad in law. With regard to 2008-2009, the number of students had considerably increased and crossed 40, and therefore, the petitioner school was entitled to have additional teachers. The learned counsel further contended that, on 05.06.2008, one teacher, by name, T. Delbi was transferred to another school and with one Graduate teacher for History for the Higher secondary standards and two teachers for Middle school, the school cannot be run.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the number of teachers was in excess for the year 2007 -2008, as the strength of the students had fallen down and the Post Graduate teachers were left with 36 free hours and they can be utilized for taking classes to the students of standards VIII, IX and X,
