Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 348 (KER)

T. Paveen v. State of Kerala

2004-07-30

KURIAN JOSEPH

body2004
Judgment :- Kerala Education Rules 1959 under Chapter VI Rule 23 provides for maximum strength in a class division. Is there any minimum so as to protect the interests of the teachers? 2. Teacher student ratio under the Kerala Education Rules is 1:45. However when the teachers faced the problem of division fall, the Government issued several orders for protecting the interests of the teachers. The relevant orders for the purpose of these cases are Exts.P4, P5 and P7 produced in W.P.(C) 25631 of 2003. G.O.(P)175/99/G.Edn. dated 26.7.1999 (Ext.P4) to the extent relevant reads as follow: “2. Government have further examined the mater in detail and are pleased to order that all aided school teachers who were in service as on 14.7.1996 will be given protection by retaining them in the respective schools subject to the following conditions: i. The teachers to whom this benefits of protection is granted will be absorbed in the future vacancies arising under the respective management. ii. No substitute will be posted in the case of retirement, resignation, death, leave or voluntary relinquishment, etc. of the incumbent, if retained by way of protection. iii. Protection will not be granted to teachers appointed during 1997-98 and thereafter. 3. Government further order that the teacher student ratio will be revised from 1:45 in the schools affected by the specific problem of division fall for the limited purpose of accommodating the teaches rendered surplus subject to the condition that no post will be created on this account. 4. The clarifications issued subsequent to the orders read as third to fifth will also prevail mutatis mutandis.” Thus it can be seen from paragraph 3 as extracted above that for the limited purpose of accommodating the teachers rendered surplus the teacher student ratio will be revised from 1:45 to 1:40 with a further condition that no new post will be created on that account. 2. The Director of Public Instructions raised a doubt as to whether the Government Order referred to above has the effect of standing orders. In unequivocal terms, as per Ext.P5 Government Order G.O. (Ms) 240/2000/G.Edn dated 24.7.2000, it was clarified as follows: “In this context Government are pleased to clarify that the orders contained in paras 3 and 4 of the G.O. read as first paper above are issued as standing orders”. Government Order dated as first paper above is Ext.P4 Government Order G.O.(P)75/99/G.Edn dated 26.7.1999. Government Order dated as first paper above is Ext.P4 Government Order G.O.(P)75/99/G.Edn dated 26.7.1999. 3. While the Government Orders Exts.P4 and P5 thus governed the field of accommodation of teachers rendered surplus by applying the ratio of 1:40 instead of 1:45, the Government issued Ext.P7 G.O.(P)403/2002/G.Edn dated 4.12.2002. The dispute is on paragraph 2(iii) which reads as follows: “The teacher student ratio of 1:40 shall be continued for this academic year also for the limited purpose of retaining the teachers who were enjoying the same benefit during the last year (3300 Nos. approximately) instead of treating them as protected teachers”. The learned Government Pleader submits that the benefit of Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders are available only to those teachers who were appointed prior to 14.7.1996 as provided in Ext.P4 Government Order. It is also submitted that only those teachers who were retained by applying the ratio of 1:40 during the academic year 2001-02 will be entitled to have the benefit of retention by applying the ratio 1:40 from the academic year 2002-03 and thereafter. 4. I am afraid the contentions cannot be appreciated. As already stated, Ext.P4 Government Order dt.26.7.1999 very clearly provided that in order to safeguard the interest of the teachers who face threat of retrenchment every year due to minor reduction in the student strength, the ratio of 1:40 will be applied. It is significant to note that there is a rider that the managements shall not make fresh appointments by applying the ratio of 1:40. In other words application of 1:40 ratio is only for the purpose of retaining the teachers in the schools who are otherwise rendered surplus if 1:45 ratio is applied and for all other purposes, 1:45 ratio continued. Since that is an issue cropping up every year, naturally the Director of Public Instructions raised a query as to whether it is a direction applicable only to the teachers appointed prior to 14.7.1996, as is canvassed by the learned Senior Government Pleader. The Government in answer to the said query, made the position in unmistakable terms that it is a standing order. Therefore for the purpose of accommodating the teachers found surplus on applying the 1:45 ratio, every year the ratio 1:40 has to be applied. 5. Ext.P7 Government order is issued modifying the guidelines on deployment of protected teachers. The Government in answer to the said query, made the position in unmistakable terms that it is a standing order. Therefore for the purpose of accommodating the teachers found surplus on applying the 1:45 ratio, every year the ratio 1:40 has to be applied. 5. Ext.P7 Government order is issued modifying the guidelines on deployment of protected teachers. It is to be noted that there is no reference to Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders, obviously since the purpose of the standing orders is different. So long as the standing orders are in force, the invocation of 1:40 ratio every year for the purpose of accommodating the surplus teachers cannot be restricted to a particular group. In fact, a teacher rendered surplus in a particular year need not be the one found surplus next year. There are instances as can be seen from the counter affidavit where teachers retained applying 1:40 ratio during 1999-2000, continuing in the school during 2000-2001 without the ratio due to increase in the number of children. However in 2001-2002 the number reduced and unless 1:40 ratio is applied they have to be retrenched or reverted. But had they had the benefit of 1:40 during 2000-2001 they could continue in 2001-2002. This is patently unreasonable. Such an unreasonable consequence cannot be brought out by the Rules or Government Orders. 6. Therefore I allow all these Writ Petitions declaring that so long as Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders referred to above are in force, for the purpose of accommodating teachers in aided schools every year who are to be rendered surplus if 1:45 ratio is applied, 1:40 ratio has to be applied. The educational authorities are directed to pass required consequential orders and disburse the benefits if any withheld. The needful would be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by the petitioners.