The District Elementary v. Hindu Primary School

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.08.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Writ Appeal (MD) No.1122 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.6910 of 2016 The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.

... Appellant/Respondent Vs.

Hindu Primary School, Gandhiji Road, Thisaiyanvilai, Tirunelveli District, Rep by its Correspondent and Manager, T.Gladstone Heeber ... Respondent/Petitioner Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20.12.2012 made in W.P.(MD).No.807 of 2010 on the file of this Court.

Prayer in WP(MD). 807/ 2010 :

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent made in Na.Ka.No. 3849/A1/2009 dated 05.01.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondent to approve the appointment of secondary grade teacher made on 21.12.2009 on the basis in Na.Ka.No. 3849/A1/2009 dated 22.09.2009 with all salary benefits, Privilages emoluments attached thereto forthwith in so far as the petitioners Hindu Primary School, Gandhiji Road, Thisaiyanvillai, Tirunelveli District is concerned. For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) This appeal is preferred by the District Elementary

Educational Officer, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District calling in question the correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD).No.807 of 2010, dated 20.12.2012. 2.The learned single Judge has set aside the impugned staff fixation order and directed the respondent to get the additional secondary grade teacher posts sanctioned to the writ petitioner school.

3.Heard Shri.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and Shri.M.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4.The entire issue relating to sanction of the posts of teachers is the subject matter of policy decisions announced by the State Government from time to time. It was essentially intended to ensure that the teacher-pupil ratio of 1:40 is maintained substantially. There is no denying the fact that during the relevant year, the overall students strength in the writ petitioner school was 326 and in all the standards I to V, the number of students present was more than 60.

In the above backdrop, whether the action of the respondent-appellant in fixing the staff strength at one post of Headmaster + 9 teachers for the academic session 2009-2010, through his proceedings dated 22.09.2009 is correct or not. 5.Learned counsel for the writ petitioner school has drawn our attention to the very policy of the State Government announced through G.O.Ms.No.250, Education and Public Health Department (Education), dated 29.02.1964 and he has taken us, through those orders by which this policy has been suitably amended from time to time. The oldest and relevant one being G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department, dated 29.12.1997. In paragraph 5, the norms suggested by the High Power Committee for sanction of posts in elementary schools has been adverted to.

Since we are dealing with elementary school, the following is the relevant extract therefrom:- "1.Elementary Schools (Standards I to V) .....

.....

c)Regarding the bifurcation of a standard, additional sections will be created when the strength exceeds 60 and so on in slabs of 40."

6.Shri.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader would put it that for every additional strength of 40, beyond 80, one post of secondary grade teacher will be sanctioned and going by that said norm, when the students strength has increased beyond 300, only 8 posts of teachers +1 post of Headmaster alone are liable to be sanctioned and the 9th post of a teacher would accrue only if the students strength reaches the mark of 340 whereas in the instant case, the students strength is only 326 and hence, the action of the appellant in revising the sanctioned staff strength from 1+9 to 1+8 through the proceedings, dated 05.01.2010 is not liable to be taken exception. But however, it is relevant to notice that a bifurcation of each standard (class) is required to be undertaken whenever the students strength exceeds 60 and the bifurcation should be achieved in such a manner that in each section of the same standard there will be 40 students. In the instant

case, as we have noticed that there are more than 61 students in each of the five standards (classes) offered in the school concerned, as a consequence of this bifurcation formula announced by the State Government itself, it becomes necessary that all the five standards in the school, there should be bifurcation of the sections. As a result, one section will have 1:40 ratio, while the other section may have less than 1:40 ratio. When so reckoned, it is 1+9 staff strength that is required to deal with 10 Sections but not 1+8.

7.In that view of the policy of the State Government, with regard to bifurcation of the class strength, whenever it exceeds 60, we find it difficult to accept the contention canvassed by the learned Special Government Pleader in the instant case. 8.Further, we are of the opinion that there is a great sense in fixing the ratio of teacher-student ratio at 1:40 which was the recommendation in fact made by a High Power Committee comprising of professionals who are well-versed with the educational system and running it efficiently. If the ratio of teacher-student is ideally maintained at 1:40, it is expected that better results would follow. This apart, a teacher will be able to concentrate much better as to how each student is making a progress in the class.

Thus, looked at it from any perspective, the order and judgment of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference and hence, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, C.M.P(MD)No.6910 of 2016 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar sms To The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District +1 cc to Mr.

M.Joseph Thatheus ,Advocate, Sr.No: 43121 +1cc to M/S Special Government Pleader, Sr No. 43254 jam/18.08.16/SKS-RR/SAR III/3P-4C Writ Appeal (MD) No.1122 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.6910 of 2016 09.08.2016