Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ptr RATIO in The Kerala Aided L.P. &U.P. School vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2013Matching Fragments
connected cases I. G.O.(MS) No.154/2013/G.Edn. dated 03.05.2013
9. The attempt of the Government by the above order is to make the Elementary Education within the State, compliant with the norms and conditions stipulated in the RTE Act. The challenge raised is with respect to Clause-2 and Clause-4 of the aforesaid G.O., which respectively deal with declaration of Standard I to VIII as Elementary Cycle and the revision of Pupil-Teacher Ratio [for brevity "PTR"]. The essential contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the provisions of the KER insofar as the same are repugnant to the provisions of the RTE Act would be rendered void by virtue of the proviso to Article 254 of the Constitution. The petitioners also place reliance on the decision in State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. [(2012) 7 SCC 106], to buttress their above contention. By virtue of the proviso to Article 254, a State legislation under List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, which has received the assent of the President under the said Article, would be subject to any subsequent Central legislation and provisions of the State legislation repugnant to the Central legislation, which, either expressly or impliedly repeals the State law would be rendered void connected cases to that extent. The specific contention is that the provisions of the KER to the extent of the repugnance to the RTE Act, would be rendered void. The principle is unassailable, but the applicability of the proposition on the instant case has to be tested.
15. The process of re-structuring would hence require more home work, as to the educational need of the area, where a particular school is situated and the proximity of nearby schools having higher standards. Definitely Clause 2 of G.O(P) 154/2013 may not alone suffice and would also depend on the interpretation of PTR ratio as provided in the RTE Act. Attention would also have to be drawn to the contemplation of the RTE Act, which places Class I to V as one unit and Class VI to VIII as another distinct unit. Though an up-gradation up-to Standard VIII would not be required, there should at-least be re-structuring of Lower and Upper Primary sections, including Class V in the former and Class VII in the latter; plucking them away respectively from the UP & High Schools. Prejudice may be caused to certain Managers and Schools; but, it is only an inevitable and necessary consequence of the implementation of the RTE Act, which could not be assailed on grounds merely of hardship.
(b) Pupil - Teacher Ratio [PTR]
17. The further contention against G.O.(MS) No.154/2013 is with respect to the revision of PTR. While the Managers contend that it has to be taken class-wise, the State contends that it is only to be maintained on a school basis. The connected cases learned counsel for the petitioners would assert that a reading of the Schedule would indicate the number of teachers to be maintained is "for first class to fifth class" and not "from first class to fifth class"; which would clearly indicate that the ratio is prescribed on the individual class basis and not on the school basis.
(5) Teachers who are appointed from 2011-2012 in vacancies arising on resignation, death, retirement, promotion and transfer in the ratio of 1:30 in L.P. and 1:35 in U.P. This is contained in Paragraph I of the Government Order.
71. Paragraph II of the Government Order deals with determination of posts, appointment and their approval. Clause (1) specifies that the same has to be done in accordance with KER, on the basis of UID. Clause (2) has two limbs: one, the prescription of 1:30 ratio for L.P. Schools and 1:35 ratio for U.P. Schools for appointments to posts existing as on 2011-2012 in vacancies arising on resignation, death, retirement, promotion and transfer. This cannot be sustained since this Court has already held that the PTR as per the RTE Act, cannot be based on the strength of students in the school and has to be on the basis of the strength of students of each class; with 30 and 35 being the maximum connected cases possible strength in each class/division. The declared ratio in the G.O. can be accepted for the year 2011-2012, but however from 2012-2013 onwards the ratio has to be as per the RTE Act. It is so, since Section 25 of the RTE Act provides for three years for satisfaction of the PTR as per the RTE Act. The second limb is continuance of the permanent staff strength as on 2011-2012, which, incorporated in the rules by the amendment, has been set aside by this Court, herein above. Hence the second limb cannot be sustained. The specification of PTR at the ratio of 1:30 for L.P. and 1:35 for U.P. for the year 2011-2012, based on the student strength of the respective school, is permissible. However, from the year 2012-2013, the posts have to be determined on the basis of 1:30 and 1.35 for Class I to V and Class VI to VIII respectively, but individually for each class.