IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1326 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFIER,
Vs
1. A.A. HAMEED, MANAGER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :13/08/2008
O R D E R
J. B. KOSHY &
K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. A. No.1326 of 2008
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
J. B. Koshy, J
During the academic year 2005-06, the
respondent/petitioner’s school had 13
divisions with 12 posts of LPSA’s, 2 posts of
Arabic Teachers and a Headmaster. On
verification of the staff strength in the year
2006-07, there were 562 students warranting 14
class divisions. But in a Higher Level
Verification conducted on 18/09/06, there were
only 457 students. Therefore, only 12
divisions were sanctioned. The Manager of the
School represented that as there was heavy
rain on that particular day of Higher Level
Verification and the school is situated in the
W. A. No.1326 of 2008 -2-
moffusil area, the students could not attend
on that day. Therefore, re-verification was
conducted and it was found that as on the
first working day of the year the students’
strength justifies warranting 14 divisions.
Excess number of students in a class will
deter the standard of education. Therefore,
learned Single Judge found that 14 divisions
are to be sanctioned in the school.
2. It is the contention of the appellant
that under Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII KER on the
basis of re-verification, staff fixation
cannot be changed. But in the original
verification conducted on the sixth working
day of the year, there was 562 students
warranting 14 divisions. Therefore, even
W. A. No.1326 of 2008 -3-
applying the ratio based on the appellant’s
contentions, 14 divisions are warranted in the
school. The learned Single Judge only followed
the ratio in the judgment in O.P.18651/2000.
The above judgment was not appealed against.
3. In the above circumstances, we see no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment
delivered by the learned Single Judge. Appeal
fails and is dismissed accordingly.
J. B. KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
kns/-