IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 2398 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23373/2008 Dated 18/09/2008 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. KERALA AIDED SCHOOL NON-TEACHING STAFF ASSOCIATION, STATE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI.V.I.JOY. 2. RAJI.T.S, FULL TIME MENIAL, R.V.UNION HIGH SCHOOL, CHERAI. 3. VINO.T.V, FULL TIME MENIAL, SANTHINIKETAN HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,THIRUVALLUR VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2398 of 2008 - E ------------------------------ Dated this, the 11th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the writ petitioners. The first appellant is an association of non-teaching staff of aided schools. The appellants 2 and 3 are members of the first appellant. The respondent is the State of Kerala. The first appellant moved the Government seeking the benefits, which were conferred on the teachers by Ext.P1 Government Order, to the non-teaching staff. As per the provisions of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules, teaching posts are sanctioned with reference to the student strength. For sanctioning of a division, there should be at least 45 students. To avoid retrenchment of teachers, the Government issued Ext.P1 order by lowering the teacher student ratio from 1:45 to 1:40, so that the teachers who were working in the previous academic year to the extent possible could be protected and retained. The sanctioning of the posts of the W.A.No.2398 of 2008 - 2 - non-teaching staff is also correlated to the student strength. The relevant provisions are contained in Chapters XXIV-A and XXIV-B of the Kerala Education Rules. The representation of the petitioners claiming benefits, similar to those granted to the teaching staff, was considered by the Government as per the directions of this Court and rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 6.3.2008. Challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that teaching staff and non-teaching staff belong to distinct and different categories and they cannot be treated as equals and if they are treated unequally, there is no violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 14. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment, the writ appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the ground taken by the learned Single Judge is not a ground relied on by the State. The Government took the view that the present non-teaching staff - student ratio has not adversely affected the smooth functioning of the schools W.A.No.2398 of 2008 - 3 - and therefore, the Government did not think it necessary to change the system. The said stand of the Government is unjustified, it is submitted. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that point, it is contended. 3. We heard learned Government Pleader who supported the impugned order as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We notice that Ext.P1 and similar orders were concessions granted to teachers. By those orders the teachers were saved from retrenchment and students were also benefited by the reduction of the teacher student ratio. But the Government found that no such considerations are relevant as far as non teaching staff are concerned and therefore, they thought that it is not necessary to disturb the existing pattern. None of the provisions of the Kerala Education Act and the Rules supports the claim of the appellants. As per the Rules, a formula is fixed for sanctioning the posts of non teaching staff. It is for the Government to decide whether the rules should be amended or relaxed as was done in the case of the teaching staff. It is W.A.No.2398 of 2008 - 4 - essentially a policy matter. This Court can interfere with such a policy decision, if only, it is found that the policy when translated into action militates against the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the teaching and non-teaching staff are unequals and if they are treated unequally, the same will not offend the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any legal right, no relief could be granted to the appellants. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- C.T. Ravikumar, Judge. DK. (True copy)