Court interprets G.O.Ms.No.525 to hold that student strength determines Physical Education Teacher strength and authorities must approve appointments accordingly.

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

18.06.2019 and seeking a direction to accord sanction and approval of petitioner’s appointment as a Physical Education Teacher in the 7^th respondent School with effect from 23.07.2018.

2. Petitioner would submit that the 7^th respondent School is a Government recognized private aided minority Higher Secondary School. Petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher on 21.07.2018 in the said school, pursuant to a vacancy caused by virtue of promotion of one Mrs.Esther Kanagarani. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the 7^th respondent School, being a minority institution, is competent to appoint teachers, and the official respondents are bound only to evaluate the eligibility for the purpose of sanctioning grant-in-aid towards payment of salary.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 7^th respondent School has a strength of more than 1,400 students. He would thus submit that, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, the school is entitled to have three Physical Education Teachers up to High School. Petitioner would submit that presently, there are only two Physical Education Teachers apart from one Physical Director Grade-II. He would further submit that staff fixation pertaining to Physical Education Teachers is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.525, as explained by this Court on more than one occasion. He would also submit that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption that there is a ceiling insofar as appointment of Physical Education Teachers.

4. To the contrary, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, there can only be two Physical Education Teachers and any appointments made in excess thereof would have to be treated as surplus and thus would not be entitled to grant-in-aid from the Government.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would then place reliance upon two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, one in the case of Director of School Education and Others vs. K.Uma, reported in W.P.Nos.226 of 2009 and

25348 of 2008, dated 04.12.2009, wherein it was held as under:

“14.G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education dated 19.12.1997 does not prohibit the continuation of the existing teach as per scale register posts, especially when the strength of the student require more physical education teachers. Paragraph 8 of the above G.O. reads as follows:

“So also whether necessary, additional posts shall be sanctioned only after taking into account the number of staff deployed to such schools. The Director of School Education and Director of Elementary Education should report the additional posts to be sanctioned as per the new norms after which formal permission in the first year alone shall be granted by the government filling up the posts. Subsequent fixation of staff strength shall be done by the District Elementary Educational Officer in respect of Elementary and Middle Schools. Regarding High and Higher Secondary Schools, this shall be done by the Joint Directors in the Education at the rate 4 revenue districts per Joint Director and permission from government to fill up the posts is not necessary.”

15. In the Full Bench judgement, it has been observed that if the teacher’s strength is required to be increased keeping in view of the teacher-student ratio, the same has to be allowed. In view of that also considering the strength of the students the authorities can increase the Physical Education Teacher’s posts. However it cannot reduce the strength of the Physical Education Teachers student strength requires more. In view of that also, the impugned order is liable to be