The court held that staff fixation orders must adhere to UID-based student strength reporting and cited procedural shortcomings in the reduction of staff posts.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, who is the approved Manager of the Aided School, SKVLPS, Kanjirathinkal, Meyyannoor, Kollam, submits that the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P1 Staff Fixation Order for the Academic Year 2023-2024. As per Ext.P1, there were 35 students as per the sixth working day report and 32 students with valid UID, based on which nine regular posts of LPST, including Junior Language Teacher (Arabic), were sanctioned.

2. The rivals of the petitioner submitted a complaint against the petitioner, pursuant to which the Super Check Cell attached to the office of the 2^nd respondent conducted surprise inspections in the School on 27.02.2024 and 07.03.2024. It was found that 10 students were absent, whereupon the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P2 Show-cause Notice. The petitioner and the 5^th respondent submitted Exts.P3 and P4 objections refuting the allegations.

3. The 2^nd respondent, without considering the valid contentions raised by the petitioner, passed Ext.P6 order directing retention of two divisions in Standard III, revising the staff fixation, cancelling one post of LPST in the School for the Academic Year 2023-2024 and directing the 4^th respondent to take action against the persons responsible for bogus admissions. Against Ext.P6, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 Revision Petition before the Government, which stands dismissed by Ext.P10 order.

4. In the affidavit filed by the Government before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the civil appeal, it was reiterated that after much thought and deliberation, the Government had formulated a scientific method to resolve issues arising from Staff Fixation Orders every year, whereby the number of students in Schools could be determined through Unique Identification Card (UID) Technology and the number of divisions arrived at on the basis of the revised Pupil-Teacher ratio.

5. The respondents ought to have found that admittedly, as per Exts.P1, P5, P6, and P10, the sixth working day report and UID show that there were 35 students in Standard I, of whom 32 had valid UID and therefore, there was no justification for the reduction of one LPST post in Standard I in the School.

6. The terms in G.O.(P) No.213/2015/G.Edn dated 06.08.2015 were considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19008 of 2013 and connected cases, wherein it was held that Clause (4) of the Government Order is with respect to determination of student strength on the basis of the UID on the sixth academic day and the declaration in lieu of that, which brooks of no dispute.

7. Admittedly, the alleged inspections were conducted by the 2^nd respondent on 27.02.2024 and 07.03.2024 in respect of the Academic Year 2023-2024 and any orders were to be issued for the same academic year on or before 31.03.2024. Ext.P6 order was issued after the expiry of the academic year on 10.07.2024 and Exts.P6, P8, and P10 declined to retain the existing division in the School as per Ext.P1 for the Academic Year 2023-2024.

8. The respondents, in Exts.P1, P5, P6, and P10, found that the sixth working day report and UID show the existence of 35 students in Standard I, of whom 32 students had valid UID. The respondents, without scrupulously following the sixth working day report, UID and Ext.P7 amended Rules of KER in force, passed Exts.P6, P8, and P10 orders declining to retain one division in Standard I and one post in the School. The impugned orders have no legal backing in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside, contends the petitioner.

9. Governme