Kannada Sangha Higher Secondary ... vs The Director Of School Education
2021 Latest Caselaw 15179 Mad

                                                                                    WP NO.11067 OF 2015


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 29.07.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

                                               WP NO.11067 OF 2015
                                               AND MP NO.1 OF 2015


                     Kannada Sangha Higher Secondary School
                     No.3, United India Nagar,
                     Auanavaram,
                     Chennai – 600 023.
                     Rep. by its Correspondent                          ...    Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                     1.The Director of School Education
                       College Road, Chennai.

                     2.The Chief Educational Officer
                       Panagal Building
                       Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

                     3.The District Educational Officer
                       Chennai (North).                                  ...   Respondents



                     PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
                     Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
                     call for the records relating to impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd

                     1/12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  WP NO.11067 OF 2015


                     respondent – The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, in Mu.Mu.No.
                     7364/A2/2014 dated 09.10.2014 withdrawing two posts (one Secondary
                     Grade and one B.T. Assistant) from the petitioner School, quash the same
                     and further direct the 2nd respondent to sanction 11 Secondary Grade Posts
                     and 7 B.T. Assistants to the petitioner School as per G.O.Ms.No.525,
                     Education Department, dated 29.12.1997.


                                   For Petitioner   :     Mr.S.Giridharan

                                   For Respondents :      Mr.C.Selvaraj
                                                          Government Advocate


                                                     ORDER

The petitioner is a Linguistic Minority Aided School. They

have a student strength of 382 for Standards VI to VIII and 272 for

Standards IX and X. They are entitled to 11 Secondary Grade Teachers, 7

B.T. Assistants and 3 Language Teachers as there are 18 Sections to these

Classes VI to X. However, the second respondent in Proceedings

Mu.Mu.No.7364/A2/2014 dated 09.10.2014 had withdrawn the two posts of

Teachers viz., one Secondary Grade Teacher and one B.T. Assistant.

Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the posts

were said to have been withdrawn in compliance with G.O.Ms.No.525,

School Education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997. As per

G.O.Ms.No.525, these schools are entitled to the Teachers corresponding to

the student strength. As per the said Government Order, in Elementary

Schools, a Teacher – Pupil ratio of 1:40 should be followed. Minimum of

two Secondary Grade Teachers upto a strength of 80 will be sanctioned. For

every additional strength of 40, one post of Secondary Grade Teacher will

be sanctioned i.e., the third post at 100, the fourth post at 140 and the fifth

post at 180 and so on. Likewise, the Middle Schools and High Schools also,

the students strength of 1:40 ratio has to be followed and in High Schools,

one Headmaster and two B.T. Assistants are given for the students strength

upto 50. In this manner, if it is calculated, the petitioner is entitled to more

number of Teachers, whereas, the second respondent has arbitrarily

withdrawn two posts.

3.The learned Government Advocate produced the files relating

to the School, wherein, it is noted that the students strength were extracted

as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 CLASS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL

VI A 36 24 60 29 23 52 29 22 51 25 25 50 VI B 35 23 58 27 24 51 29 22 51 23 27 50 VI C 8 1 9 8 3 11 8 3 11 6 3 9 VII A 35 24 59 38 21 59 27 22 49 31 19 50 VII V 27 33 60 34 24 58 28 22 50 30 19 49 VII C 11 6 17 10 2 12 9 3 12 7 3 10 VIII A 30 23 53 29 27 56 35 20 55 27 21 48 VIII B 28 23 51 30 28 58 34 21 55 27 22 49 VIII C 17 11 28 13 11 24 10 2 12 8 3 11 IX A 34 23 57 31 23 54 30 27 57 34 18 52 IX B 34 24 58 33 23 56 29 26 55 31 21 52 IX C 17 5 22 29 12 41 13 12 25 12 2 14 XA 31 21 52 27 23 50 32 22 54 27 24 51 XB 35 21 56 26 24 50 30 23 53 29 26 55 XC 14 9 23 15 6 21 28 11 39 13 10 23 392 271 663 379 274 653 371 258 629 330 243 573

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 CLASS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 CLASS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL

320 232 552 312 231 543 303 219 522

2019-2020 2020-2021 CLASS BOYS GIRLS TOTAL BOYS GIRLS TOTAL

4.As per the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madurai

Bench of this Court, aid will be given only to the Schools, which conducts

classes in Tamil Medium only. Further, when the petitioner / School was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

started, aid was granted on a condition that it will be granted only to Tamil

Medium classes. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the sanction of

more number of posts and withdrawal of two posts ordered by the second

respondent is correct and it does not require any interference.

5.In the considered opinion of this Court, the sanctioning of

Teacher post is based on Teacher – Pupil ratio of 1:40 as specified in

G.O.Ms.No.525. The above tabular column produced by the respondents the

number of students ranging from 573-663 upto Class – X. For the year

2020-2021, the students strength is 504. On the basis of the students

strength following the guidelines specified in G.O.Ms.No.525, the Teachers

post should have been sanctioned. Even though the petitioner / school is

entitled to more number of posts, it was not sanctioned, but two posts were

withdrawn contrary to the guidelines given in the above said

G.O.Ms.No.525. The respondents are not in a position to explain or clarify

the reasons which lead to the impugned order. Further, when aid is granted,

it shall be extended to all the courses irrespective of the medium. The

respondents cannot discriminate on the basis of medium of language

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

through which the students are taught. The reasons stated by the

respondents is not sustainable.

6.A Full Bench of this Court in DIRECTOR OF

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHENNAI AND OTHERS VS.

S.VIGILA AND ANOTHER [2006 (5) CTC 385] has categorically

observed as under:-

“(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.

(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 sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

(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 eduction. This requirement is not only in respect of aided schools or Government schools, but also in respect of any private recognised school. In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any school which requires recognition.

(5)It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the constitution.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Teachers – Students strength shall be in

the ratio of 1:40 and whenever additional requirement to create posts that

should be allowed by the respondents.

7.Recently, a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this

Court in THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF

TAMIL NADU, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

VS. IRUTHAYA AMALI AND OTHERS [ WA (MD) NOS.76 OF 2019

ETC., BATCH DECIDED ON 31.03.2021] has observed as under:

“.....accordingly, the school shall be the unit and not the educational agency for fixing the staff strength, based on which, every year, staff strength based on the teacher-

pupil ratio shall be fixed on or before a particular date by the Educational authorities followed by identification of excess teaching staff in every such school and once excess teaching staff are identified, those excess staff shall be redeployed to needy school under the same management or different managements, as the case may be. In this context, a strict time schedule shall be followed, both by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP NO.11067 OF 2015

Education Department as well as the Institutions and its managements and there shall be no deviation of such compendium of schedule, which we propose to prescribe in this Order. “

8. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the second

respondent is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1)

Department, dated 29.12.1997 and therefore, the impugned proceedings

issued by the second respondent in Mu.Mu.No.7364/A2/2014 dated

09.10.2014 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.

The respondents are directed to sanction appropriate number of Teachers

corresponding to the students strength and the Teachers – Students ratio.

9.In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                                          29.07.2021

                     Index           : Yes/No
                     Internet        : Yes/No
                     TK





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                          WP NO.11067 OF 2015




                     To

                     1.The Director of School Education
                       College Road,
                       Chennai.

                     2.The Chief Educational Officer
                       Panagal Building
                       Saidapet,
                       Chennai – 600 015.

                     3.The District Educational Officer
                       Chennai (North)








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                           WP NO.11067 OF 2015


                                    M. GOVINDARAJ, J.


                                                         TK




                                   WP NO.11067 OF 2015




                                               29.07.2021







https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/