The decision emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures in government communication, particularly regarding appointments and the pupil-teacher ratio in educational institutions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10thday of February, 2026 The petitioner, who is Manager of an Aided School, states that he had appointed one Anitha K.R. as Lower Primary School Teacher with effect from 23.07.2018 in an existing vacancy which was adjudged to be available from the academic year 2011-2012 and continued as such till the date of Staff Fixation Order for the period upto the academic year 2018-2019 from the academic year of 2011-2012.

2. This is because of the direction of this Court which has been ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in effectuation of the right to Free and Compulsory Education Act and the Rules thereunder and also the Kerala Education Act and Rules, the ratio between the pupil-teacher (PTR) is to be reassessed from the academic year 2011-2012.

3. As per the said decision of this Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court the ratio shall be 1:30 for Standard I to V and 1:35 for Standard VI to VIII. The petitioner's school has been reassessed in 2018 in accordance with the said decision and additional vacancies were sanctioned from 2011-2012 onwards.

4. To one of these vacancies the said Anitha K.R. has been appointed. But there is a wrong endorsement by the 4^th respondent in the fixation order that 2016 Government Order will apply for the vacancies of the academic year 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. This is incorrect and the orders based on such conception resulting in Exts.P1, P3, P4 and P7 is to be set aside, contends the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. I find that Ext.P7 is an order purportedly passed by the Government on a statutory revision petition filed by the Manager. Ext.P7 is in the nature of a letter / communication. A full bench of this Court has held in the judgment in Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others [2009 (4) KLT 29] that decisions of the Government should be in the prescribed form adhering to the rules of business of the Government.

7. A statutory revision cannot be disposed of in the manner as has been done in Ext.P7 throuh a letter signed by the Under Secretary.

For the afore reasons, Ext.P7 is set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the revision petition dated 21.10.2019 referred to in Ext.P7 and pass orders afresh within a period of three months.

Sd/-