Judgment : The issues involved in these writ petitions are connected with each other and hence both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this common order are referred to according to their rank in W.P.No.40116 of 2005. 3. Prayer in W.P.40116 of 2005 is to quash the order of the second respondent dated 5. 2005, wherein the second respondent directed the petitioner Management to pay back the staff grant received on behalf of A.Immaculate Lylla, Secondary Grade Teacher, who was working in the petitioner School from 11. 2003 to 112. 2004, who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.16439 of 2008. 4. The 5th respondent filed W.P.No.16439 of 2008 wherein she challenged the order dated 26. 2008 requesting the management to recover the salary paid to the 5th respondent for the period from 11. 2003 to 30.9.2004 and for consequential direction to pay salary to the petitioner from 10. 2004 to 112. 2004 and sanction annual increment to her from 2004 and confer all consequential benefits. 5. It is seen from the records that the 5th respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 26. 1977 in the C.S.I. Elementary School, Mailoor Estate, Kottakkal, Nilgiris District and the said appointment was approved. The School in which the petitioner was appointed was established and administered by the C.S.I. Schools Management. The 5th respondent was transferred to C.S.I.Elementary School, Adderley Estate, on 6. 1985 by the management, which was also approved. Thereafter the 5th respondent submitted representation to the management seeking transfer to the petitioner School since the 5th respondents husband died and she was living with her only son. Consequently the 5th respondent was transferred to the petitioner school on 11. 2003. The said transfer was also approved by the second respondent and salary was also paid to her till October, 2004. On 11. 2004, the 5th respondent submitted representation to the Joint Director of School Education for payment of salary continuously. Subsequently the salary was also paid. However, the salary already paid is sought to be recovered on the ground that the 5th respondent was posted in surplus post and therefore either the management should pay the salary or the same should be recovered from the 5th respondent and paid to the department. 6. Subsequently the salary was also paid. However, the salary already paid is sought to be recovered on the ground that the 5th respondent was posted in surplus post and therefore either the management should pay the salary or the same should be recovered from the 5th respondent and paid to the department. 6. The second respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that one Lakshmi was working in the petitioner School, who retired on 35. 2003 and on her retirement, along with her post, two other posts were found surplus during the year 2003-2004 in the petitioner school and the said three surplus posts were surrendered to the Director of School Education by proceedings dated 210. 2003. 7. Admittedly petitioner School is a primary School having standards 1 to 5 and as on today, petitioner School has got only five teachers including that of the 5th respondent. 8. How to assess the staff strength as per G.O.Ms.No.525 School Education Department, dated 212. 1997 was considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 (Director of Elementary Education v. S. Vigila), wherein the Full Bench in paragraph 23 held as follows: "23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 212. 1997 should be interpreted in the following manner: .(1) The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. should be primarily considered by taking each individual standard/section as a unit. .(2) The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards/Section in a school. In other words, if there are five standards, obviously the minimum number of teachers should be five, out of which one would be the Headmaster. .(3) If the students strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required. .(3) If the students strength in a particular Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an additional section is required to be created requiring the sanction of a second teacher and the strength reaches 100, the post of a third teacher is required. .(4) Even after maintaining the aforesaid ratio by taking into account the students strength of each individual standard and additional section, as the case may be, by keeping in view the teacher-students ratio 1:40 of the entire school if the teachers strength is required to be increased, the same has to be allowed, but in no case, the teachers strength should be less than the number of standards including the additional sections. If more teachers are thus sanctioned keeping in view the over all strength of the school, the authorities of the school should create additional section in respect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keeping in view the standard of education. This requirement is not only in respect of Aided Schools or Government Schools, but also in respect of any Private Recognized School. In other words, this ratio is to be maintained for any school which requires recognition. .(5) It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the Constitution." Applying the said ratio laid by the Full Bench to the facts of these cases, I hold that the petitioner school is entitled to have minimum of five teacher posts. Apart from that 5th respondent is an approved teacher, who was transferred to the petitioner School in the retirement vacancy. Even though the said vacancy is said to be surrendered by the second respondent, no order was communicated to the petitioner management, declaring the said post as surplus. 9. In the light of the above facts and as per the decision of the Full Bench, I hold that the petitioner management is well within its right to transfer the 5th respondent to the petitioner school, which was also approved by the second respondent. The recovery orders dated 5. 2005 and 26. 2008 passed by the second respondent are unsustainable and the same are set aside. The second respondent is directed to pay the annual increments due to the 5th respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The recovery orders dated 5. 2005 and 26. 2008 passed by the second respondent are unsustainable and the same are set aside. The second respondent is directed to pay the annual increments due to the 5th respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The writ petitions are allowed with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.