High Court Kerala High Court

Kerala Aided School Non-Teaching vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Kerala Aided School Non-Teaching vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23373 of 2008(G)


1. KERALA AIDED SCHOOL NON-TEACHING
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJI T.S., FULL TIME MENIAL,
3. VINOD T.V. FULL TIME MENIAL,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :18/09/2008

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               = =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = =
                           No. 23373 OF 2008 G
                    = = =


             Dated this the 18th day of September 2008


                           J U D G M E N T

In this writ petition what is under challenge is Ext. P3.

Petitioners are also seeking a declaration that the non-teaching staff

working in the aided schools are entitled to the benefit of the

reduced teacher student ratio of 1:40 granted to the teachers in

aided schools.

2. In my view, non-teaching staff, whom the petitioners are

representing and the teaching staff working in the aided schools are

belonging to different classes of employees and the service

conditions of one class cannot be compared with the service

conditions that are available to others. Article 14, the benefit of

which is sought by the petitioners, do not prohibit classification, but

only prohibits discrimination. To successfully set up a case of

discrimination, both set of employees should belong to the same

class of employees.

W.P.(C) No. 23373 OF 2008
-2-

3. In my view, non-teaching staff and the teaching staff

belong to different classes of employees and therefore one cannot

complain of discrimination comparing itself with employees

belonging to the other class. In that view of the matter, I do not

find any justification in the plea of the petitioners that they should

be given parity with the conditions that are applicable to the

teaching staff.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-