Madras High Court
Kasturba Gram High School vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 22 August, 2017
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.18017 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.19580 - 19582 2017
Kasturba Gram High School
Rep by its Secretary,
Kasturba Gram Post,
Arachalur Via,
Erode District 638 101. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
4. The District Educational Officer,
Erode District. ...Respondents
Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned order of the 2nd respondent in and Na.Ka.No.25081/T1/E4/2017 dated __.05.2017 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to give permission for filling up the Physical Education Teacher post to the petitioner School or any other suitable orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Satishkumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy
Additional Government pleader.
O R D E R
The writ petitioner/ school has challenged the order passed by the second respondent, by which the petitioner's request for sanctioning one post of Physical Education Teacher, as per the recommendation made by District Educational Officer after inspection of the school, was rejected.
2.The petitioner/ school was started during the year 1970 as Girls High School and subsequently, the strength of the students gone down and in view of that, it has been made as Co-education School. Originally the first respondent sanctioned teaching posts of 1 Head Master, 4 B.T. Assistants, 1 Tamil Teacher, 1 Physical Education Teacher (PET), 1 weaving teacher (Vocational Instructor).
3.However, after the inspection made during the year 2007-2008, the strength of teachers was erroneously fixed by the 3rd respondent stating that Physical Education Teacher is surplus, as the students strength has reduced below 250. The then Physical Education teacher went on superannuation with effect from 31.01.2008.
4.Thereafter, the petitioner school made representation to the second and third respondents vide representation dated 25.07.2008, requesting them to give permission to fill up the vacancy of Physical Education Teacher. However, no permission was granted.
5.Subsequently, the school was converted as Co-Education School from the Academic Year 2011-2012 and the strength of the students got gradually increased and achieved more than 250. Therefore, the petitioner school is eligible for one Physical Education teacher. Thereafter, on request, the third respondent made an inspection at the school and found that there are as many as 263 students studying and observed that the school is entitled to one Physical Education Teacher.
6.The third respondent also recommended to the second respondent for appointment of a Physical Education Teacher in the petitioner school. The said proposal was rejected by the impugned order of the second respondent stating that if the post, which was found to be surplus, is granted, it will set a bad precedent. The said order is being challenged before this Court.
7.Heard Mr.K.Sathish Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Anandhamoorthy learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
8.There is no dispute with regard to the functioning of the school, originally as Girls High School and after reduction in strength, as Co-Education School. Originally, the school was having 1 Head Master, 4 B.T. Assistants, 1 Tamil Teacher, 1 Physical Education Teacher (PET), 1 weaving teacher (Vocational Instructor). As the school strength came down below 250 during the year 2007-2008, the Physical Education Teacher post was held to be surplus.
9.Thereafter, 'much water has flown under the bridge' due to the conversion of the school as Co-Education School and the strength of the students got increased to 253 as per the report given by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. In fact, it has been so observed in the impugned order itself by the second respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the strength of the students is 253. As per G.O.M.S.No.525, School Education Department, dated 29.12.1997, if the strength of the students is more than 250, sanctioning of one Physical Education Teacher post has to be permitted. Therefore, as per the above G.O., the petitioner school is entitled to have one Physical Education Teacher.
10.What is relevant is the strength of the students studying in the school in a particular academic year and no other consideration could be weighed in the mind of the decision making authority, namely the second respondent, as to whether the school was originally having Physical Education Teacher and thereafter, it was declared surplus and therefore, one post could be granted.
11.Even if the post is sanctioned again as per the strength of the students it cannot be termed as a bad precedent. The teacher's strength should be reciprocal to the strength of the students and that is reason for issuance of the G.O.M.S.No.525 dated 29.12.1997.
12.The reason given by the second respondent is contrary and foreign of G.O. Ms. No.525 dated 29.12.1997. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed and there shall be a direction to the respondents to sanction and appoint a physical education teacher within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
For reporting compliance, call after six weeks.
22.08.2017 Note: Issue order copy on __________ smn/maya Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No N.KIRUBAKARAN,J smn/maya To
1.The Secretary, School Education Department, The Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer, Erode District, Erode.
4. The District Educational Officer, Erode District.
W.P.No.18017 of 201722.08.2017