Judgment :- (The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.) The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the third respondent made in and O.M.9651/B2/2004, dated 04.01.2005, and confirmed by the orders of the second respondent made in M.M.84260/D.3(4)04, dated 25.01.2005, and M.M.15973/D.3(4)05, dated 29.03.2005, and quash the above orders and direct the respondents to upgrade the existing physical education Teacher post in the Higher Secondary Section from 02.06.2003 onwards and permit the petitioner to appoint a physical education teacher in the existing resultant vacancy in the High School Section in accordance with law and in particular in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.525 Education (D.1) department, dated 29.12.1997. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner school that it consists of standard VI to XII and it has been established and administered since 1947 and has a higher secondary school since 1977. It is mainly run for the benefit of children mostly belonging to the weakest sections of the society who are workers in the cardamom plantations and employed as agricultural coolies. The petitioner school provides free education to the children and no fees are collected other than those which are prescribed and permitted by the Education Department, government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner school is a recognised government aided school and the teachers and non-teaching staff are all appointed by the school in the government sanctioned and approved posts. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner school that the norms of teacher pupil ratio fixed by the Government Education Department in G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education (D.1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, which is as follows "When the strength of classes VI to X in high schools exceeds 250, one post of Physical Education Teacher will be sanctioned and for every additional strength of 300, one additional Post of Physical Education Teacher will be sanctioned subject to a maximum of 3. Higher Secondary schools 11th and 12th standards. Higher Secondary schools 11th and 12th standards. For schools with a strength of over 400 one post of physical director will be given by upgradation of existing post of physical education teacher." It is further submitted by the petitioner that eventhough the school was lawfully entitled to two posts of physical education teacher and one upgraded post of physical education teacher as physical director, the education department as per their staff fixation reports sanctioned and approved three posts of physical education teacher and permitted the senior most physical education teacher as inducted teacher to handle the higher secondary sections of standard XI and XII and special pay as allowance was granted to him. All the said posts were fully utilised and the three physical education teachers had been receiving government salary in the sanctioned and approved posts. While so, the senior most inducted physical education teacher Mr. S. Rajagopal reached his age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2003. As per Rule 15(4) of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, the senior most physical education teacher P. Palanisamy, who is fully qualified as physical director was promoted as physical education teacher to handle the higher secondary classes which admittedly has more than 400 students. The petitioner school had sought permission for filling up the vacancy caused due to the retirement and resultant promotion on 01.06.2003 onwards. However, the District Education Officer approved the promotion of P. Palanisamy, as Physical Education Teacher in the Higher Secondary classes, on a special pay of Rs.60/- instead of upgrading the said post of Physical Education Teacher as Physical Director vide his proceedings in Mu.Mu.2084/B3/2, dated 03.08.2003. Hence, an appeal was made to the Chief Educational Officer who instead of granting permission to the petitioner school to fill up the resultant vacancy of Physical Education Teacher in the High School Section treated the same as surplus. A further representation was made to the Chief Educational Officer on 24.12.2004. However, the Chief Educational Officer, vide her proceedings in O.Mu.9651/B2/2004, by order, dated 4.1.2005, held that since one post was surplus, no permission could be granted. 5. A further representation was made to the Chief Educational Officer on 24.12.2004. However, the Chief Educational Officer, vide her proceedings in O.Mu.9651/B2/2004, by order, dated 4.1.2005, held that since one post was surplus, no permission could be granted. 5. In the circumstances, the petitioner school had preferred a statutory appeal to the Joint Director of School Education vide his proceedings M.M.84260/D3(4)04, dated 25.01.2005, without reference to the staff fixation orders took note only of the high school strength fixed by the Chief Educational Officer and held that the permission to fill up the vacancy could not be granted. The petitioner school had written back to the director on 16.02.2005 with the student strength particulars on 31.08.2004 which was the criteria for staff fixation and the Director of School Education vide his proceedings in M.M.15973/D3(4)05, dated 29.03.2001, having held that the school has student strength of 672 students in standard VI to X and 456 students in standard XI and XII arbitrarily held that as per G.O.M.S.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, the school is entitled only for two posts of physical education teacher. 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.525 Education, dated 24.12.1997, the school is entitled for two posts of physical education teacher, as the strength of the students is more than 550. Further, the said school is also entitled for one post of upgraded physical education teacher (Physical Director) in the Higher Secondary School of standard XI and XII, as the students strength is more than 400 students. In such circumstances, the order of the Chief Educational Officer, dated 04.01.2005, and that of the Director of School Education, dated 25.01.2005 and 29.03.2005, are contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.525, education, DATED 29.12.1997. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED CHALLENGING THE ABOVE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 7. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that Mr. S.Rajagopal had retired from service on 31.05.2003. The secretary of the petitioner had applied to the Chief Educational officer, to accord permission to fill up the vacant post of physical education teacher But, during that time, the student strength in the petitioner's school in standards VI to X was only 588. Therefore, only two Physical Education teachers were eligible as per the norms. The third post will be allowed only when the students strength in VI to X exceeds 850. Therefore, only two Physical Education teachers were eligible as per the norms. The third post will be allowed only when the students strength in VI to X exceeds 850. Therefore, the third respondent in proceedings R.C.No.1364/B2/2004, dated 12.04.2004, refused to grant permission to fill up the vacant post. 8. It is stated by the third respondent, as per the revised norms prescribed in Government orders No.525 School education (D1) Department, dated 29.12.1997, para 5(iii) (c) only the students strength in standards VI to X are taken into account for the fixation of the posts of Physical education Teachers.(ie) for students strength in standards VI to X in High Schools exceeds 250, one post of Physical Education Teacher will be sanctioned and for every additional strength of 300, one additional post of Physical education Teacher will be sanctioned to a maximum of three. In the same Government orders para 5(iv) (f) for Higher Secondary Schools in standards XI and XII with a strength of over 400, one post of Physical Director will be given by upgradation of existing post of Physical education Teacher. Since the students strength in standards XI and XII was only 366, the upgradation of one Physical education Teacher post into Physical Director post also not eligible. Moreover the senior most Physical education Teacher Mr. P. Palanisamy is allowed to handle Higher secondary classes with a special pay of Rs.60/- per month. Therefore, upgradation of one Physical education Teacher post into Physical Director post was also not in order. However, on inspection, the Chief Educational Officer, Theni, has found that as on 01.08.2005, the strength of students studying in the petitioner's school is as follows :- Sl.No - Std - No of students studying Boys - Girls - Total 01. VI - 96 - 19 - 115 02. VII - 85 - 30 - 115 03. VIII - 89 - 16 - 105 04. IX - 209 - 08 - 217 05. X - 112 - 12 - 124 Total - 591 - 85 - 676 06. XI - 196 - 196 07. XII - 206 - 04 - 210 Total - 402 - 04 - 406 From the above tabulation, it is seen that the total strength of students studying in standards VI to X is 676 and students studying in standards XI and XII is 406. XI - 196 - 196 07. XII - 206 - 04 - 210 Total - 402 - 04 - 406 From the above tabulation, it is seen that the total strength of students studying in standards VI to X is 676 and students studying in standards XI and XII is 406. According to G.O.Ms.No.525 Education Department, dated 29.12.1997, the petitioner school would be entitled to two physical education teacher post on the strength of students studying in classes VI to X as on 01.08.2005. Since in classes XI and XII, the students strength are 406 students, the petitioner school would be entitled for one Physical Director. As such, the petitioner school would be entitled to two Physical education Teacher and one Physical education director. Any other interpretation of the G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997, will not be proper, since the additional upgraded post of Physical Director is sanctioned and approved by the school authorities only with the intention of providing better facilities to the students based on the students strength of the educational institution concerned. It is also seen that a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions reported in (2006) 1 MLJ -317, upheld the G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the documents filed before this court the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner school may make a detailed representation to the third respondent, if so advised, and on such representation being made, the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, within six weeks thereafter, subject to the required conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioner school for the appointment of a qualified physical education teacher. With the above directions the writ petition is allowed. No costs.