IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23/12/2005 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN WRIT PETITION NO.17732 of 1999 and WRIT PETITION NOS., 1983, 23514, 25369 & 25370 of 2001, 286, 503, 520, 521, 523 to 525, 526, 674 to 676, 3022, 3923, 6594, 13023, 23389, 23625, 29588, 29775, 29838, 29893, 29978, 30305, 30440, 32100, 32916 to 32919, 33552, 34149, 35103 to 35105, 35386, 35405, 35745, 36767, 37020, 37441, 38250, 39134, 39405, 39854, 39858, 39859, 39906, 41974, 42308, 44608, 44759, 45226, 45514, 45515, 46680 to 466 83 of 2002, 159, 160, 855 to 858, 1272, 1632, 4371, 6229, 6822, 7079, 7853, 8993, 9299, 9857, 9858, 9991, 9993, 9994, 10038, 10057, 10292, 10609, 11295, 14439, 14440, 14757, 19903 and 34658 of 2003 and connected WPMPs., ..
W.P.No.674 of 2002:
Aided Elementary School
T. Puthur, T.V. Puthur P.O.
Virudhachalam Taluk 606 110
Rep. By its Secretary
R. Ponnusamy. .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By the Secretary to
Government, Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The District Elementary Educational
Officer, Cuddalore.
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational
Officer, Virudhachalam. .. Respondents
Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner in : Mr. C. Selvaraju, Sr.Counsel
WP.38250/02 For Mr. S. Mani
For petitioner in : Mr. A. Jinasenan
Wps674 to 676/02
For petitioner in : Ms. T. Ananthi
WP.503/02
For petitioner in : Mr. J. Sundar
WP.13023/02
For petitioner in : Mr. R. Ganesan
WP.29588/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. K. Srinivasan
WP.29775/02
For petitioner in : Mr. Jagadish Chandra
WP.32916/02
For petitioner in : Mr. V. Kathiravan
WP.33552/02
For petitioner in : Mr. Suresh Viswanath
WP.35103/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. Isaac Mohanlal
WP.35405/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. S.Silambanan
WP.35745/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. K.V. Subramanian
WP.37020/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. G. Jeremiah
WP.39405/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. R. Santhanam
WP.39906/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. V. Venkatasamy
WP.42308/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. Srinath Sridevan
WP.45514/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. S. Giridharan
WP.44608/02
For petitioner in : Mr. N. Paul Vasanthakumar
WP.39858/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. R. Dharmaraj
WP.10292/03 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. S.N. Ravichandran
WP.6229/03 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. K.S. Kumar
WP.7079/03 etc.
For petitioner in : Mrs. G. Thilakavathi
WP.11295/03
For petitioner in : Mr. A. Ilango
WP.1983/01 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. P. Rajendran
WP.3022/02 etc.
For petitioner in : Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam
WP.30440/02
For petitioner in : Mr. Ajmal Khan
WP.8993/03
For petitioner in : Mr. M. Chidambaram
WP.4371/03 etc.
For petitioner in : Ms. R.T. Shyamala
WP.39134/02
For respondents in : Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy
all the WPs., Addl. Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr. V. Karthikeyan
Addl.Govt., Pleader (Edn.)
:COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and
the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order.
2. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed
questioning the orders passed by the educational authorities directing
deployment of teachers found surplus in the respective schools based on
G.O.Ms. No.525 Education Department, dated 29.12.1997.
3. The facts leading to filing the above writ petitions are
as follows:
(a)The writ petitioners are either the respective school managements or the
deployed teachers, who question the orders passed by the authorities. On
29.12.1997, the Government had issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.525 School
Education, prescribing revised norms for sanctioning the required number of
posts in the Elementary / Middle / High and Higher Secondary Schools for
purposes of aid. The writ petitions are mostly related to Elementary and
Middle Schools, to which the norms for sanction of required number of posts of
teachers are common. As per the aforesaid Government Order, the teacher-pupil
ratio, 1:40 was required to be followed with a minimum of 2 secondary grade
teachers upto the strength of 80. The Government Order further provided that
for every additional strength of 40 students, one post of secondary grade
teacher will be sanctioned. The order further directed that the third post
will be sanctioned when the student strength reaches 100 and the fourth and
subsequent post will be sanctioned for every addition of 40 students.
(b)The Government Order and the directions issued by the Government stipulate
that the strength of the students will be examined by taking into account the
average attendance for the month of August. It was further provided that in
the event of there being excessive teachers, the surplus teachers will be
deployed to the neighbouring schools.
(c)The aforesaid Government Order was questioned in a batch of writ petitions.
By order dated 06.10.1998, this Court upheld the validity of the above
Government Order. Writ Appeals (W.A.No.1768 of 1998 etc., batch) filed
against the said orders were also dismissed by order dated 09.11.2000.
4. It is brought to our notice that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.525 was
directed to take effect from 01.06.1998. On account of the pendency of the
writ petitions and thereafter the writ appeals, no action could be taken to
implement the Government Order till 09.11.20 00. After the dismissal of the
writ appeals, action was taken to implement the Government Order. After
ascertaining the average attendance of students in August, 2001, orders were
issued by the educational authorities deploying the excess teachers wherever
found, to the neighbouring schools. Those orders were challenged in this
batch of writ petitions.
5. While disposing of the writ appeals, the earlier Division Bench
has taken note of a circular issued by the educational authorities and
observed that schools will be entitled to a third teacher when the strength is
81. The said circular issued in 1998 was plainly inconsistent with the
Government Order and the said circular was rescinded even in December, 1998.
However, the Division Bench, while rendering judgment in the writ appeals,
took note of the said circular and observed that schools with student strength
of more than 80 would be entitled to a third teacher when the strength is 81
and thereafter one teacher for every additional 40 students. In this regard,
a clarification petition, viz., WAMP.No.5667 of 2003 was filed by the
Government, was heard by a Division Bench, which ultimately passed orders on
12.05.2004, clarifying the order passed in the writ appeals to the effect that
the third teacher will be sanctioned only when the student strength is 101 and
thereafter the school will be entitled to one teacher for every addition of 40
students, viz., 140, 180, 220, etc.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that the educational authorities
had implemented the Government Order strictly from August 2001 by taking into
account the provisions contained in the said Government Order and they did not
take note of the circular issued by the authorities in February, 1998, which
was rescinded even in December, 1998.
7. The contention of the writ petitioners in the batch of writ
petitions is twofold.
(a)Firstly, they contend that since the Division Bench judgment in the writ
appeals had referred to the entitlement of a third teacher when the student
strength is 81, which had been corrected in the clarification petition in 2003
only, the impugned orders passed in 2001 or 2 002 should be set aside and the
authorities should be directed to perform a re-exercise by testing the student
strength as of August 2005 and pass fresh orders.
(b)Secondly, having regard to the fact that there had been change of
circumstances by efflux of time as there would have been retirement etc., of
the existing teachers who continued on account of stay orders, it is just and
necessary that a re-exercise is to be done so that the student and the
teachers strength as on August 2005 be taken into account before passing
appropriate orders by the authorities. It is further contended that by doing
this exercise there will be no prejudice caused to anybody.
8. So far as the first contention is concerned, the observation by the
Division Bench judgment to the effect that the schools will be entitled to a
third teacher when the student strength is 81 was based on a circular which
was rescinded even in 02.12.1998 and having regard to the fact that the
authorities had implemented only the Government Order strictly according to
its terms from August, 2001, there is no necessity to perform the exercise
again. Further, the clarification petition and the order passed did not
affect the impugned orders, since the impugned orders were passed strictly on
the basis of the Government Orders, according to which the schools are
entitled to a third teacher only when the student strength is 101 and
additional teacher for every additional strength of 40.
9. With regard to second contention, even though the
G.O.Ms.No.525 came into effect from 01.06.1998, it could not be implemented on
account of pendency of writ petitions and writ appeals till November, 200 0.
After the dismissal of the writ appeals, the Government Order had been
implemented by taking into account the strength of students in August 2001.
It is perfectly valid, since the Government Order has been upheld and the same
had been implemented in accordance with law and therefore no exception can be
taken by the petitioners. The fact that there has been increase in the
strength of students subsequently or number of teachers has dwindled by
retirement, etc., cannot be a ground to invalidate the impugned order. It is
also the submission of the Government that in the event of any particular
order being incorrect and inconsistent with the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.525, they had been corrected by appropriate orders. As the
Government Order has been upheld finally and that the Government have
implemented the Government Order strictly in accordance with its terms, the
impugned orders cannot be invalidated and the respondents need not be directed
to re-do the exercise.
10. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners, viz., School Managements and
the Teachers are having no grievance regarding the order of the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.525 Educational Department dated 29.12.1997. According to them,
while ascertaining the Teacher-Pupil strength, the educational authorities
have failed to consider various aspects. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Additional Advocate General, the earlier Division Bench, particularly
in the clarificatory order dated 12.05.2004, explained that as per
G.O.Ms.No.525, the Teacher -Pupil ratio is 1 : 40 and only when the pupil
strength is 80, second teacher post will be sanctioned and likewise, when the
strength is 1 00, 3rd teacher post will be sanctioned and the 4th teacher post
at 1 40, 5th teacher post at 180 and so on. We have also verified the
impugned orders passed by the various educational authorities and we are
satisfied that they were passed strictly on the basis of the Government Order,
according to which the schools are entitled to third teacher only when the
student strength is 101 and an additional teacher for the additional strength
of 40 students.
11. The other contention that the Educational Authorities failed to consider
the change of circumstances by efflux of time, viz., retirement, voluntary
retirement, death, etc., is concerned, we are of the view that after
verification, if student strength is found increased, it is always open to the
school authorities to highlight the same to the concerned educational
authority / authorities by placing acceptable materials. If any such
representation is made supported by acceptable evidence, it is for the
educational authority / authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders,
modifying their earlier decision.
12. Under these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for
interference in the orders of the respondents. We are satisfied that all the
orders have been passed based on G.O.Ms.No.525 Educational Department dated
29.12.1997, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. As
said earlier, in the case of retirement, voluntary retirement or death of a
teacher and if there is any increase in pupils strength, the school management
is free to represent the same to the educational authority and if any such
representation is made, the concerned educational authority is duty bound to
pass appropriate orders, after inspection and verification.
13. It is brought to our notice that in all the writ petitions, by
virtue of interim orders granted by this Court, the deployed teachers were
allowed to continue in the same schools. Considering the interest of the
students studying in the respective institutions, we permit all the teachers
concerned to continue if they so desire in the respective schools till the end
of April, 2006. It is made clear that the respondents are free to implement
their orders from 01.05.2006 onwards.
With the above observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
kh
To
1. The Secretary to
Government, State of Tamil Nadu
Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The District Elementary Educational
Officer, Cuddalore.
4. The Assistant Elementary Educational
Officer, Virudhachalam.