Madras High Court
The Correspondent vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 12 September, 2022
1 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.15731 of 2018 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14095 & 14096 of 2018
The Correspondent,
R.C.Middle School,
Ammapatti – 624 206,
Dindigul District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Previously the DEEO,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Previously the AAEEO, Nilakottai,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for
the records relating to the impugned staff-fixation orders
issued by the 2nd respondent DEO/DEEO for the academic year
2015-2016 and 2016-2017 dated 04.11.2016 and 28.02.2017
respectively in so far as it renders one post of BT Assistant
(English) in the petitioner's school as surplus and the
consequential impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
2 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
respondent vide Na.Ka.No.3616/Aa3/2016 dated 12.07.2017 in
so far as surrendering the BT Assistant(English) post in the
petitioner school to the Director is concerned and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar,
for M/s.Isaac Chambers.
For Respondents: Mr.S.Shaji Bino,
Special Government Pleader.
***
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The writ petitioner is a middle school coming under
the Corporate management of R.C.Diocese, Madurai. It is a
minority institution. There are totally 101 students are
studying in the primary section. The primary section has the
sanctioned strength of four teachers and there is no dispute
regarding the same. At present the petitioner challenges the
staff fixation for the middle school section (classes 6 to 8) for
the academic year 2016-17.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, I wanted
the learned Special Government Pleader to make a statement
regarding the exact students strength as of now. It is stated
that the students strength for the classes 6 to 8 is as follows:-
Class Male Female Total
4. Since there are only 104 students, the question is
how many teachers can be sanctioned. According to the
learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, they are
entitled to four teachers. They had been sanctioned with four
posts ( 3 B.T. Assistants + 1 Headmaster ) and that this
arrangement should not be disturbed. He stated that there are
totally five subjects, namely, Tamil, English, Mathematics,
Science and Social Science. Tamil teacher cannot be expected
to teach English or vice versa. Therefore, ideally speaking,
middle school section must have five teachers with one
headmaster. The learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of Madras High Court
reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 ( Director of Elementary
Education V. S.Vigila ). He would also contend that under
Article 21A of the Constitution of India, every child has a
fundamental right to education. He would state that since the
Government could not establish educational institutions to
cater to the needs of the students, they are obliged to support
the existing institutions. He called upon this Court to quash
the impugned order and direct the respondents to maintain
the present strength of eight teachers for the school.
5.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader
submitted that the impugned staff fixation does not call for
any interference.
6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the materials on record.
7.The decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench reported in
2006 (5) CTC 385 ( Director of Elementary Education V.
S.Vigila ) cannot be applied for two reasons. It pertains to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
elementary schools and extending the underlying logic to
classes 6 to 8 may not be appropriate. A learned Judge of this
Court had held in Y.Elizabeth Rani v. Board of Elementary
Education [(2013) 1 Mad LJ 335] observed that “the Full
Bench in Paragraph No.23.5 had given liberty to the
Government to formulate appropriate norms in consideration
with the observation made thereunder and therefore, it cannot
be universally said that every elementary school, irrespective
of the students strength, should have 5 teachers. The said
argument also goes to the contrary to the Tamil Nadu Minority
Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977,
wherein, the State Government has stipulated that even in
respect to minority schools there should be economic strength
prescribed by the Education Department in all the standards.”
It was further observed that “the Government cannot be taxed
to pay grant to teacher irrespective of whether there is
students in the school or not.” Another learned Judge of this
Court vide order dated 04.10.2012 in WP(MD)No.4006 of
2009 and WP(MD)No.5222 of 2009 observed that a
mechanical application of Vigila would mean that even for 2
students in a standard, the Government is obligated to provide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
a teacher. The contention of the writ petitioner therein was
found to be unreasonable and amounts to fleecing the
educational authorities under the guise of imparting free
education. Para 30 of the said order is as follows :
“The contention of the school that
notwithstanding the strength in a standard, for each
standard, one teacher has to be sanctioned is wholly
unreasonable. In the name of imparting education,
the school cannot interpret the Full Bench judgment,
in the manner contrary to the intention in fixing the
norms. Merely because the institution is an aided
minority institution, it is not open to the school to
raise unreasonable and unworkable demands. If for
four students and 5 students in a standard, the
Government have to sanction posts and grant aid
then, the norms fixed by the Government can even be
scrapped. At this juncture, this Court is constrained
to observe that earlier it was the noble intention of
educationists and philanthropists to start educational
institutions with their own funds, to impart education
to the needy, and it was purely charitable. The
Government have also exempted them from paying
certain taxes and granted concession in the matter
of levying road tax, for even vehicles used for
transporting staff and children. Today, as the
Supreme Court having seen the trend, has described
that imparting education by some of the institutions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
has become an occupation. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
Government is obligated to provide free education to
the children below 14 years, and that therefore, even
if the students strength falls shortage of the ratio
1:40, in a standard, the Government have to sanction
teachers posts, is irrational.”
8.Classes 6 to 8 are having students' strength of 104.
As per G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D1) Department
dated 29.12.1997, when the students' strength crosses 100,
they will be entitled to three teachers. As regards the
argument of the petitioner's counsel that for each subject,
there must be one specialised teacher, I can only respond that
when the petitioner is coming under a corporate management,
they can as well have one headmaster who is qualified in one
of the five subjects. If the argument of the petitioner's counsel
is accepted, then the result will be that they will have five
teachers for five subjects for Classes 6 to 8 along with one
headmaster. These are the matters that have substantial
financial implications and the ground realities cannot be
ignored. When the students' strength is 104 for Classes 6 to 8,
they can have only three teachers including one headmaster.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
I decline to interfere with the impugned staff fixation order.
This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
To:
1. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Previously the DEEO,
Dindigul,
Dindigul District.
3. The Block Educational Officer,
Previously the AAEEO, Nilakottai,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9 W.P.(MD)NO.15731 OF 2018
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)No.15731 of 2018
12.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
