IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 26842 of 2007(U) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE MANAGER (CORRESPONDENT) SANSKRIT HIGH SCHOOL, VATTOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VADAKARA. BY SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.26842/2007 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER DTD. 7.1.05 FOR 2004-05 OF SANSKRIT H.S. VATTOLI. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 16.7.05 OF R3. EXT. P3 : COPY OF ORDER DTD.16.3.06 OF R2. EXT. P4 : COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE R1. EXT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER OF R1 DTD. 18.4.07. EXT. P6 : COPY OF STAFF FIXATION ORDER FOR 2005-06 DTD. 2.1.06. EXT. P7 : COPY OF FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR 1999-2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26842 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is the Manager of a High School, is aggrieved by the refusal to sanction an additional division in Standard IX in spite of the availability of sufficient accommodation. 2. The academic year in question is 2004-2005. Ext.P1 is the copy of the staff fixation order. In the year 2004-2005, there were 102 students in Standard IX which entitled an additional division and a post in the school. But, only 14 divisions were sanctioned going by Ext.P1. In the additional division, one Sri.Rajeevan was appointed as H.S.A and as the additional division has not been sanctioned, the appointment of Sri.Rajeevan has not been approved. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.26842/2007 2 submitted that even going by the staff fixation order, it can be seen from the accommodation existing that item No.5 in Ext.P1 is a stage having measurement of 22x20x13 which was thus available for accommodating the additional division. It is pointed out that apart from it the petitioner had provided an additional accommodation for Standard IX with measurement of 20x20x12 but the fitness certificate for the new accommodation was obtained only on 23.09.2004 and hence it was not acted upon. 4. Even though the District Educational Officer refused to sanction the additional division based on the fitness certificate dated 23.09.2004, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the stage was already available prior to that date, the same could have been considered in the staff fixation order for sanctioning the additional division. 5. When the appeal was disposed of, the Deputy Director of Education by Ext.P2 directed the District Educational Officer to verify whether the room which was described as stage could be utilised for the purpose of conducting classes but at the same W.P.(C) No.26842/2007 3 time consequential direction issued was to consider it for the next academic year namely, 2005-2006. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the same in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction. When the matter was disposed of in further appeal by Ext.P3, what was mainly considered was the question of sanction of additional division based on the fitness certificate dated 23.09.2004 namely, the additional accommodation provided by the petitioner for a class room. 6. The view taken in Ext.P3 is that as the fitness certificate was issued only on 23.09.2004, the same cannot be considered for sanctioning an additional division. But, in Ext.P3, with reference to the argument of the Manager that if the stage is taken into account the request can be considered, it is stated as follows: “.....It is further recorded that the Dist.Edl.Officer had verified the accommodation in the stage and found to be feasible to conduct the classes”. But no finding was rendered on it. 7. In the further revision filed by the petitioner before the W.P.(C) No.26842/2007 4 Government, the petitioner had specifically raised a contention that additional division ought to have been sanctioned in the light of the fitness certificate and the measurement of the stage which will show that it can be treated as a class room. The Government while disposing of the revision petition as per Ext.P5, only referred to the fitness certificate dated 23.09.2004 which is admittedly for additional accommodation. The Government also found that no division can be sanctioned based on a fitness certificate which is of the date 23.09.2004. 8. The only question is whether the authorities ought to have considered the sanction of additional division based on the availability of a room which is used as a stage. Learned Government Pleader submitted that fitness certificate for the stage itself is dated 23.09.2004 which is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the staff fixation order Ext.P1 was issued based on the fitness certificate of an earlier date and the fitness certificate dated 23.09.2004 is including one in respect of the additional class room with the W.P.(C) No.26842/2007 5 measurement 20x20x12. 9. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Education, Director of Public Instruction and the Government that based on the fitness certificate dated 23.09.2004, additional class division could not be sanctioned for 2004-05 is correct. But, the only question to be examined is whether based on the earlier fitness certificate of building which includes the stage, a class division can be sanctioned for the year 2004-05. But the same has not been examined as evident from the orders passed. Therefore, the orders are upheld only in respect of the finding that fitness certificate dated 23.09.2004 cannot be utilised for the year 2004-05. But, with regard to the other question whether the stage could have been utilised as a class room, the District Educational Officer will consider the same afresh. Appropriate orders will be passed by the District Educational Officer after hearing the petitioner and after assessing all the materials including the respective fitness certificates which includes the stage having measurement of W.P.(C) No.26842/2007 6 22x20x13 for the academic year 2004-05 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp