1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.A.(MD).No.86 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 in WP.No.8877/2009 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sethuraman Pillai Colony, Trichy, Trichy District. : Appellants/Respondents Vs. K.Karunakran, Secretary cum Correspondent, Thennur Middle School, Thennur, Trichy District. : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26.03.2010 made in W.P.(MD). No.8877 of 2009 on the file of this Court praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceeding of the second respondent dated 11.8.2009 in Na.Ka.No.5473/A4/2009 and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondents to fill up the three vacant posts of Secondary Grade Teachers created in Thennur Middle School, Thennur, Trichy. For Appellant : Mr.R.Janakiramalu Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran JUDGMENT ************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.8877 of 2009. 2. The respondent herein filed the said Writ Petition challenging the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the second appellant herein and for a consequential direction to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appellants to fill up three vacant posts of Secondary Grade Teachers created in Thennur Middle School, Thennur, Trichy. 3. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that respondent is the Secretary cum Correspondent of Thennur Middle School, Trichy. The said school is having Classes from Standards I to VIII, and therefore, the school is bound to have minimum eight teachers, but only six Secondary Grade Teacher posts are available and out of six posts, three Secondary Grade Teachers viz., Ulagammal, Gragalaxmi and Chandra retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006, 31.05.2007 and 31.05.2009 respectively. Therefore, the respondent school applied for permission to fill up three posts on 14.10.2008, 17.12.2008 and 12.06.2009 respectively and no order is passed by the second appellant. The respondent school considering the availability of posts, filled up the same and submitted proposal for approval of appointment of three Secondary Grade Teachers due to vacancy arose on account of retirement of the said three teachers. The second appellant, by his proceedings dated 11.08.2009, rejected the said request of the respondent school and ordered resumption of posts. The said order was challenged by filing the said Writ Petition. 4. In the said Writ Petition, the first appellant filed a counter affidavit stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, revised norms were issued for fixing the number of teachers for every school and as per the said Government Order and on considering the strength of the students, the approval of appointment in respect of the said three teachers cannot be considered. 5. The learned Single Judge, on a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and after following a Judgment of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Director of Elementary Education vs. S.Vigila reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385, by order dated 26.03.2010, set aside the impugned order passed by the second appellant and allowed the Writ Petition. Challenging the same, the appellants have come up with the present Writ Appeal. 6. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records carefully. 7. Admittedly, the respondent aided school is having standards I to VIII, and therefore, the respondent school is entitled to have eight teachers as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, cited supra. In Paragraph No.23, the Full Bench held as follows:- "23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner: (1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. Should be primarily considered by taking each individual standard/section as a unit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (2) The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school. In other words, if there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster. (3) If the students' strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the saction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required. (4) Even after maintaining the aforesaid ratio by taking into account the students' strength of each individual standard and additional section, as the case may be, by keeping in view the teacher-students ratio 1:40 of the entire school if the teachers strength is required to be increased, the same has to be allowed, but in no case, the teachers' strength should be less than the number of standards including the additional sections. If more teachers are thus sanctioned keeping in view the over all strength of the school, the authorities of the school should create additional section in respect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keeping in view the standard of education. This requirement is not only in respect of Aided Schools or Government Schools, but also in respect of any Private Recognized School. In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any school which required recognition. It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the Constitution." 8. The first respondent school is a middle school giving free education to students between the age of 6 and 14 and the teachers are also appointed in sanctioned posts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was right in allowing the Writ Petition. No case is made out to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, the order dated 26.03.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.8877 of 2009 is confirmed and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sethuraman Pillai Colony, Trichy, Trichy District. +One CC to Mr.K.K.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.3267 +One Cc to The Spl. Govt. Pleader, SR.No.3588 NB rl/5c – 14.2.2011 JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.86 of 2011 27.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/