Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33224
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
, J
SARIKA K.G – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/1065/2021
V.A.MUHAMMED, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.), SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI.V.VENUGOPAL-GP
Staff fixation must adhere to prescribed teacher-student ratios, influencing appointment validity in educational institutions.
Headnote:
Education - Appointment - Staff Fixation Orders - 1:30 Teacher-Student Ratio - The court addressed the legal implications of teacher-student ratios in school staffing and the validity of appointment approvals based on the inadequacies in staff fixation processes.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions are presented regarding the appointment of teachers. One teacher claims entitlement to a position based on the teacher-student ratio of 1:30, while the other contests a government order shifting her position, leading to conflicting claims over teaching vacancies in a school.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the government's previous decisions regarding teacher appointments and vacancies lacked adequate consideration of the teacher-student ratio's requirements, necessitating a reconsideration of both petitions.
Issues: The central issue revolves around the validity of the appointments made under a staff fixation order that did not comply with the prescribed teacher-student ratio and the subsequent implications of the government orders impacting the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that administrative decisions must accurately reflect the legal staffing requirements based on ratios mandated, thereby influencing all related appointment approvals.
Final Decision: The court set aside the prior government orders and mandated a re-evaluation of teacher appointments in light of the proper staff fixation procedures.
JUDGMENT
I am considering these two writ petitions together since they involve analogous factual circumstances; but seek prayers which are opposing each other.
2. WP(C) No.1632/2019 has been filed by a teacher by name Aswathy.A.B, who claims to have been appointed as a Lower Primary School Teacher (LPST) in “Sree Durga Vilasam L.P.School”, Peramangalam (hereinafter referred to “School” for short), in two spells, with effect from 02.01.2012 and from 06.06.2012 in an anticipated vacancy. She asserts that even though the teacher – student ratio of 1:30 ought to have been applied in the School, thus leading to the creation of an additional vacancy, the same has not been done by the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO), even when the revised Staff Fixation Order was issued, namely Ext.P16.
3. The Petitioner points out that in Ext.P16, when the Staff Fixation for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was finalised, it has been remarked that no appointments were made against the additional divisions by applying the teacher – student ratio of 1:30 and therefore, that the sanctioned divisions were limited to those existing for the academic year 2010-11.
4. The petitioner asserts that had the competent Assistant Educational Officer revised the Staff Fixation Order appropriately, by adopting the teacher – student ratio of 1:30, she could have been easily admitted to the additional division vacancy from 02.01.2012 onwards; but that her approval has been rejected by the Director, of General Education (DGE), through Ext.P12, holding that she has been appointed only to the vacancy caused on account of the Headmaster of the School being relieved of teaching duties and that the said vacancy could have been filled up only by a protected teacher.
5. The petitioner says that, she, therefore, preferred a Statutory Revision Petition before the Government, but that the same has been now rejected through Ext.P14, without assessing any of the relevant factors, but merely saying that no post had been created in the School in the academic year 2011-12, under the teacher student ratio is 1:30.
6. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P14 be set aside and Government be directed to approve her appointment in the additional vacancy to be created by applying the teacher – student ratio of 1:30 in the School, for the academic year 2011-
12.
7. While so, WP(C) No.1065/2021 has been filed by another teacher by name, Smt.Sarika.K.G, who impugns Ext.P15 order of the Government, whereby, it has been directed that Smt.Aswathy [petitioner in WP(C) No.1632/2019] be accommodated to the vacancy to which she was initially appointed as L.P.S.A on 02.07.2015 and to resultantly shift her to the vacancy that arose in the School in the academic year 2018- 19. The specific contention of Smt.Sarika.K.G is that Ext.P15 is illegal and unlawful because Smt.Aswathy cannot be shifted to the vacancy to which she had been accommodated on 02.07.2015 – Smt.Aswathy having been appointed in the year
2011, as has been asserted by her in the other writ petition.
8. I have heard Smt.P.A.Jenzia – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1632/2019; Sri.V.Varghese – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.1065/2021; Sri.Brijesh Mohan – learned counsel appearing for the Manager of the School and the learned Government Pleader Sri.V. Venugopal, appearing for the official respondents.
9. The afore narrated facts would make it limpid that while Smt.Aswathy seeks approval to her appointment with effect from 02.01.2012; Smt.Sarika impugns Ext.P15 in WP(C) No.1065/2021 to the extent to which she has been directed to be shifted to a vacancy of the year 2018-19.
10. It is, therefore, needless to say that the entire controversy would abate, should the case of Smt.Aswathy is accepted by the competent Authority because, if an additional division vacancy is found eligible to the School in the academic year 2011-12, then obviously she would be entitled to be approved against the same and
