Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 April, 2019
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 30.01.2019
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 01.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.P.(MD)No.6172 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2015
The Correspondent,
R.C.Middle School,
Saveriarpuram,
Asirvathapuram via
Tuticorin District – 628 613.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Turicorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Alwarthirunagri at Thenthiruperai,
Tuticorin District.
...Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned
Staff-Fixation for the academic year 2014-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent DEEO in
proceedings Nil dated 21.01.2015, quash the same and further direct the respondents
herein to approve the appointment of Tmt.S.Geethanjali at BT Assistant (English) in
the petitioner-school w.e.f., 25.02.2015 and disburse grant-in-aid towards salary and
other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Maurya
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathi,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Staff-Fixation for the academic year 2014-15 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 21.01.2015 and for approval of the appointment of Tmt.S.Geethanjali as BT Assistant English in petitioner's school with effect from 25.02.2015.
2. The petitioner is an aided middle school. The 3rd respondent viz., the District Elementary Education Officer passed orders fixing the teachers strength at a total of four on the following breakup:
Middle School Head Master –1 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 BT Assistant for Standard VI to VIII –1 BT Assistant for Standard I to V –2 The total number of students in the school was 45 in the primary school and 37 in the middle school. The breakup figures are as follows:-
Primary School:
I Standard – 10
II Standard - 10
III Standard - 9
IV Standard - 8
V Standard - 8
------
Total - 45
------
Middle School:
VI Standard – 11
VII Standard - 18
VIII Standard - 8
------
Total - 37
------
3. After the said staff fixation order was made, the Bishop of Tuticorin who was the Manager of R.C. Schools at Tuticorin diocese appointed one S.Geethanjali as http://www.judis.nic.in 4 a graduate teacher in English in the petitioner school on 23.02.2015. Complaining that the District Elementary Education Officer had not approved the appointment of the said S.Geethanjali, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition seeking a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the staff fixation and for approval of the appointment of S.Geethanjali as BT Assistant in English.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the staff fixation is against the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It is also contended that in view of the provisions of the said Act and G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education (C2) Department dated 11.08.2010, the school is eligible for five teachers and therefore the staff fixation fixing the staff strength at four on the basis of the students strength is arbitrary and illegal.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. In the said counter affidavit, the respondent would rely upon G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education Department dated 11.08.2010 and contend that for Classes I to V, the school is entitled to two teachers for the students strength upto 60 and for classes VI to VIII there shall be atleast one teacher for each class. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the school is entitled to two teachers for classes I to V and two teachers for classes VI to VIII and since there are already four teachers working in the institution, the appointment of the fifth teacher cannot be approved.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6. It is the further contention of the 3rd respondent that since the average attendance of the students in the school does not warrant filling up of the post that became vacant on 03.06.2015, the appointment of Antony Mariyadoss or Geethanjali is not warranted and hence the same cannot be approved.
7. I have heard Mr.L.P.Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned Special Government Pleader, Education for the respondents.
8. Mr.L.P.Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the very basis on which the respondents have arrived at the required teachers strength is flawed. According to the learned counsel, as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 read with G.O.Ms.No.231 dated 11.08.2010, the school is entitled to two teachers upto student strength of 60 for standard I to V. Insofar as the Middle School section is concerned i.e., Standard VI to VIII, according to Mr.L.P.Maurya, the school is entitled to atleast one teacher per class, so that there are three teachers viz., one for science and Maths, one for Social Studies and one for Languages.
9. Mr.L.P.Maurya would contend that the school is entitled to five teachers irrespective of the students strength. He would also draw my attention to the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 provisions of the G.O in G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education (C2) Department dated 11.08.2010 which provides for Pupil-Teacher Ratio under the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Schedule to the said Government Order provides for number of teachers. As per the schedule the number of teachers for Classes I to V, for students strength upto 60 is 2. Insofar as VI class to VIII class is concerned, the number of required teachers does not depend on the students strength. The Schedule to the G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education (C2) Department dated 11.08.2010 which relates to the Middle School Section viz., VI Class to VIII Class reads as follows:-
(b) For Sixth class to eighth class (1) At least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for--
(i) Science and Mathematics;
(ii) Social studies
(iii) Languages (2) At least one teacher for every thirty-five children.
(3) Where admission of children is above one hundred--
(i) a full time head-teacher;
(ii) part time instructors for--
(A) Art Education;
(B) Health and Physical Education;
(C) Work Education
10. I have already extracted the students strength. The students strength in the primary section is 45, therefore the school is entitled to two teachers for the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 primary section. The staff fixation done for the year 2014-15 provides for two teachers for the primary section. So there is no dispute regarding the same. As regards the middle school section ie., Standard VI to VIII the Government Order provides that there shall be atleast one teacher per class so that there shall be atleast one teacher each for (i) Science and Mathematics (ii) Social Studies and (iii) Languages and atleast one teacher for every 35 children.
11. Therefore, the mandatory requirement for the Middle School is that it should have one teacher per class i.e., three teachers for the Middle School section alone. But however, the staff fixation has been done based on the students strength and only two teachers have been assigned for the Middle School Section including the Head Master. This according to Mr.L.P.Maurya is incorrect. If G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education (C2) Department dated 11.08.2010 is applied then the school would be entitled to five teachers and not four teachers as decided by the Authorities.
12. The counter affidavit, though extracts G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education (C2) Department dated 11.08.2010, proceeds on the footing that the school is entitled to only four teachers. There is no reason whatsoever assigned for non-
implementation of G.O.Ms.No.231, School Education (C2) Department dated 11.08.2010, while considering the staff fixation. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
13. It is claimed that there are several schools under the corporate management of the Bishop of Tuticorin diocese and there are several surplus teachers in other schools and therefore the individual correspondents cannot go on appointing new teachers, thereby increasing the financial burden on the Government.
14. Atleast two Division Benches of this Court had held that it is open to the Authorities to make redeployment of surplus teachers working in aided schools also. The Authorities have not chosen to resort to redeployment for reasons best known to them. Therefore, I don't think that the approval can be rejected or withheld on the ground of there being surplus teachers in other schools. It is open to the Authorities to redeploy surplus teachers if necessary and reduce the financial burden.
15. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The staff fixation order dated 21.01.2015 is quashed and the respondents are directed to approve the appointment of S.Geethanjali as BT Assistant with effect from 25.02.2015. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.04.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order dsa http://www.judis.nic.in 9 To
1.The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Turicorin, Tuticorin District.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Alwarthirunagri at Thenthiruperai, Tuticorin District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 R.SUBRAMANIAN. J dsa Pre Delivery Order in W.P.(MD)No.6172 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2015 01.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in