Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
B. Siva Sankari & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos. 18856 & 18857 of 2017 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos. 15214 to 15217 of 2017, 9375, 9377, 9379, 9731, 9733 & 9735 of 2020
Decided On : 19-05-2022
Surplus Teachers - Education - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - G.O.Ms.No. 525 dated 29.12.1997 - G.O.Ms.No. 231 - The court discussed the staff fixation for the academic year 2010-2011 and the eligibility of teachers based on student strength. It highlighted the legal provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, G.O.Ms.No. 525 dated 29.12.1997, and G.O.Ms.No. 231, and their interpretations in determining the eligibility of teachers and surplus positions, influencing the court's decision to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions were filed by B.Siva Sankari and R.Tamil Selvi, challenging the staff fixation for the academic year 2010-2011, which rendered two posts of Secondary Grade teachers as surplus. The petitioners sought approval for their appointments as Secondary Grade teachers and grant-in-aid towards their salaries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the School had appointed teachers in excess of the eligible positions based on student strength, as per the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and relevant government orders. It concluded that the appointments were not in accordance with the law and dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of teachers based on student strength, the interpretation of government orders, and the legality of the appointments made by the School.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, G.O.Ms.No. 525 dated 29.12.1997, and G.O.Ms.No. 231 to determine the eligibility of teachers based on student strength and the surplus positions. It emphasized the need to adhere to the prescribed teacher-student ratios and the consequences of appointing teachers in excess of the eligible positions.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the appointments of the petitioners as Secondary Grade teachers were not in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent District Elementary Educational Officer, dated 13.12.2010 (settling the Staff Fixation for the 5th respondent-school for the year 2010-2011), to quash the same in so far as it renders two posts of Secondary Grade teachers as surplus and further to direct the third respondent District Elementary Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade teacher with effect from 01.07.2010 in the 5th respondent school and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary including all the attendant benefits.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent District Elementary Educational Officer, dated 13.12.2010 (settling the Staff Fixation for the 5th respondent-school for the year 2010-2011), to quash the same in so far as it renders two posts of Secondary Grade teachers as surplus and further to direct the third respondent District Elementary Educational Officer to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade teacher with effect from 02.07.2010 in the 5th respondent school and disburse grant-in-aid towards her salary including all the attendant benefits.)
1. The Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.18856 and 18857 of 2017 are filed B.Siva Sankari and R.Tamil Selvi respectively.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that the 5th respondent School, namely TELC, Middle School is one among the numerous educational institutions owned and administered by the Tamil Nadu Evangelical Lutheran Church. There are 602 students and 17 Teachers in the School (one Head Master, one B.T. Assistant, 15 Secondary Grade Teachers) and one Sewing Mistress, one Tamil Pandit, one Physical Education Teacher in the academic year 2010-2011. Now, the strength was reduced to 15 Teachers (1 Head Mistress, 14 Secondary Grade Teachers) are working in the School with effect from 29.08.2016. After the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, with effect from 26.08.2009, the norms are fixed for different stages of education. In the Primary School, the appointment of Secondary Teachers is fixed based on students strength in the ratio 1:30 and in Middle School ratio of 1:35 students is adopted.
3. One secondary Grade post fell vacant on 13.01.2010 due to the resignation of the then incumbent V.Veni on 12.01.2010 and in the said vacancy the petitioner Siva Sankari was appointed on 01.07.2010. The School submitted a proposal to DEEO on 13.07.2011, requesting to approve the appointment. One another post of Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant on 02.07.2010 due to transfer of then incumbent M. Rajeshwari on 01.07.2010, to another School under the same management, namely, Y.M.C.C. Middle School, Madurai. In that vacancy, the School appointed one R. Tamilselvi as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 02.07.2010. The School submitted the proposal on 13.07.2011, requesting to approve the appointment. The petitioners contended that the DEEO would approve the appointment only after the staff fixation of the academic year 2010-2011 is published. The admitted students strength for the academic year 2010-2011 for every month a register would be maintained and the same was counter signed by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer. For every month, there is some fluctuation in the strength and on average, the Primary School is eligible for six Teachers and the Middle School is eligible for twelve Teachers and in total eligible for 18 Secondary Grade Teachers apart from Tamil Pandit, Physical Educational Teacher for the academic year 2010-2011. However, the third respondent while setting the staff fixation for the academic year 2010-2011 has indicated that the
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the adherence to prescribed teacher-student ratios and the consequences of appointing teachers in excess of the eligible positions based on stud....
The court emphasized the necessity to consider prior judicial orders and the long service of teachers when determining staff approvals, ruling against dismissals based on surplus declarations without....
Judicial scrutiny ensures that teacher appointments in minority institutions cannot be denied without substantiated evidence of surplus staff, upholding equitable rights to employment.
Minority institutions must comply with government staffing regulations despite constitutional rights, especially regarding sanctioned posts requiring minimum student numbers.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as a teacher in a private school, was entitled to receive salary and continuity of service for the period she worked, and t....
In educational staffing, reductions must be justified by clear evidence of irregularities; otherwise, staff retention is warranted.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
