Judgment :- The Manager of a Lower Primary School is the writ petitioner. The Ext. P9 order passed by the Government disallowing sanction for an additional division in first standard is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The main question involved in this writ petition relates to the fixation of staff strength in the first standard for the year 1989-90. The 3rd respondent, Assistant Educational officer inspected the school for the fixation of the staff strength on 28-6-89. During the inspection he had recorded roll strength as well as verified strength in respect of standard I to IV. The roll strength of standard I is 73 whereas verified strength is 55. Likewise, for standard IV roll strength is 76 whereas verified strength is 72. Ext. P2 is the copy of the report on verification made by the 3rd respondent. On the basis of Ext. P2 the Assistant Educational Officer observed that the school was entitled to get two more divisions, one in standard I and another in standard IV. At present there is no dispute with regard to the fixation of the strength in standard IV and dispute only confines to the staff strength in standard I. The 2nd respondent thereafter made a verification on 21-8-89. On that day due to epidemic spread out in the area, the number of pupils attending in the 1st standard was very much low. Therefore the result of the verification by the 2nd respondent was not in favour of the petitioner as far as the 1st standard is concerned. Ext. P3 is the copy of the report of the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the Ext. P3 report, the Assistant Educational Officer has passed Ext. P4 fixing the staff strength of the 1st standard as one. According to the petitioner, there was sufficient number of students in the 1st standard for ordering an additional division. Therefore he submitted a representation before the 1st respondent on 22-8-89 for a direction to the authorities concerned to revisit and refix the staff strength of 1st standard in view of the provisions contained in Explanation 4 to Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rule. Ext. P5 is the copy of the representation. Therefore he submitted a representation before the 1st respondent on 22-8-89 for a direction to the authorities concerned to revisit and refix the staff strength of 1st standard in view of the provisions contained in Explanation 4 to Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rule. Ext. P5 is the copy of the representation. Thereupon the Government have given a reply to the petitioner dated 28-8-89 informing that necessary direction had been given to the 2nd respondent in so far as the fixation of the staff strength in the 1st standard. Ext. P6 is the copy of the reply given by the Government, subsequently the 2nd respondent made a revision 25-9-89 and found that the attendance in the 1st standard was 58 as against the roll strength of 68. Ext. P7 is the copy of the report of revisit made by the 2nd respondent. In spite of Ext. P7 report, necessary sanction for additional division was not given. In that situation the petitioner again approached the Government as per Ext. P8 representation. That representation was disposed of as per Ext. P9 order by the 1st respondent. The said order is under challenge 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext. P9 is elliptical and does not conform to administrative fairness. Counsel adds that there is no application of the mind by the 1st respondent in so far as the contentions urged by the petitioner. It was pointed out that a new division in the 1st standard should have been sanctioned in view of the Ext. P7 report made by the 2nd respondent. lt was further urged that the petitioner had not been granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the impugned order adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner was being passed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that the Government had taken a stand that no new divisions would be sanctioned based on the second revisit conducted by the officers concerned. 4. Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rule deals with procedure for fixation of the strength of the teaching staff. However, Explanation (1) to the said rule prescribes that the provisions contained in Rule 23 of Chapter VI shall be applied in fixing the number of class divisions. 4. Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rule deals with procedure for fixation of the strength of the teaching staff. However, Explanation (1) to the said rule prescribes that the provisions contained in Rule 23 of Chapter VI shall be applied in fixing the number of class divisions. In other words the substantive provision applicable to the fixation of staff strength of the teaching staff in a school is the one contained in Rule 23 which runs thus: "Maximum strength of a class Division: The maximum strength of a class division shall be 45, but excess admission up to 50 will be allowed. When there are more than 50 students a second division may be opened, when the strength exceeds 95 a third division and so on. Provided that the Educational Officer may, for sufficient reasons allow retention of excess strength over 50 in a class division". It is clear from the above rule that a second division of a class shall be opened when there are more than 50 students and when the strength exceeds 95, a third division shall be allowed. 5. But the question that requires to be considered is whether Ext. P7 can be relied upon for sanctioning the second division in the first standard. As pointed out above Ext. P7 is the copy of the report regarding the re-visit. That is a report prepared in view of the provisions contained in Explanation IV to Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII. This provision authorises the Government to issue direction to the Educational Officer to revisit and refix the strength of the teaching staff in case the Government are satisfied that the effective strength of any division is likely to have been diminished in any particular year by any reason whatsoever. It is for the Government to consider whether on the basis of the report of the revisit, a new division can be granted in a particular case. The object of the revisit itself would be defeated in case such consideration is not made. The Government in such circumstances shall afford sufficient attention to the substantive provision contained in Rule 23, which deals with maximum strength of a class division. The predominant purpose behind Rule 23 is to afford sufficient facility for the students to attend a class division and obtain instructions from teachers providing healthy atmosphere and avoiding congestion. The Government in such circumstances shall afford sufficient attention to the substantive provision contained in Rule 23, which deals with maximum strength of a class division. The predominant purpose behind Rule 23 is to afford sufficient facility for the students to attend a class division and obtain instructions from teachers providing healthy atmosphere and avoiding congestion. The appointment of a teacher for an additional division is only incidental to fixation of strength of students and it can not said to be a paramount consideration under Rule 23. 6. As far as the present case is concerned, I am inclined to accept the argument that the Government while passing Ext. P9 order have not applied their mind to the contentions urged by the petitioner. No reasons are given in Ext. P9 for disallowing additional division in 1st standard. It only says additional division can not be granted on the basis of the revisit. Ext. P8 is the copy of the representation filed before the 1st respondent for sanctioning an additional post in the 1st standard and that was mainly based on Ext. P7 report submitted by the 2nd respondent. The Government are fully aware that in case Ext. P8 is ultimately rejected, that would cause some damage or injury or hardship to the petitioner. Where rights of a person are adversely and prejudcial affected by an order made by an authority in a proceeding, such person is entitled to a predecisional notice irrespective of whether the proceeding is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative in nature. This position in law cannot be disputed at all. the Supreme Court in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal and Others v. Gopi Nath & Sons and Others reported in (1990) 77 STC 1 (SC) observed: "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision-making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. What is poignantly emphasized here is 'to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment' before taking a decision. Here The court is concerned not with the ultimate decision but with the decision-making process. Fair treatment to an aggrieved citizen must be effective and meaningful. This can be achieved only by serving a pre-decisional notice to the person concerned in a case where the decision to be taken would affect him adversely and prejudicially. When an additional division in the 1st standard is proposed to be disallowed, such decision no doubt, would adversely and prejudicially affect not only the Manager of the School, but also the school-going students. Therefore according to me, a pre-decisional notice to the petitioner was imperative in the present case before the final decision as per Ext. P9 was being taken by the Government. This infirmity is fundamental and hence Ext. P9 is liable to be set aside. I do so. 7. Consequently I direct the Government to consider Ext. P8 representation afresh on merits and in accordance with law and also in view of the observations made above. I further make it clear that a notice shall be issued to the petitioner affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any final decision is taken on Ext: P8 representation. The request of the petitioner for approval of the appointment of the teacher made on 17-7-89 is a consequential issue to be considered along with Ext. P8. In view of the fact that Ext. P8 is dated 4-10-89,1 direct the 1st respondent to take a final decision as above within a period of four months from today. With the above directions, the O.P. is disposed of.