Judgment :- 1. On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.7399/A2/2003 dated 23.10.2003, and the consequential order of the third respondent dated 17.01.2004 and to quash the same. 3. The petitioner was employed as B.T. Assistant (Science) by the third respondent/Correspondent in Government (Aided) High School having one section each in 6 to 8th standard and two sections each in 9th and 10th standards with the total strength of 213 students and sanctioned strength of 12 teachers i.e. 1+11. Out of the total strength of teachers one was kept vacant. While so, the annual inspection of the school was held by the second respondent on 10.10.2003, on which date, the total strength of the students present were 192. The second respondent, considering the same declared one post of B.T. Assistant as surplus and as the petitioner is the junior most teacher in the school, he was declared as surplus by the impugned order which is followed by the consequential order passed by the third respondent. The present writ petition is filed challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order passed by the second respondent thereby declaring one post of B.T. Assistant in the third respondent school as surplus. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would seriously argue that the impugned order, declaring one post of B.T.Assistant as surplus is arbitrary, illegal and against the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.525, Education Department, dated 29.12.1997. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner having regard to the total strength of the students, total number of standards and sections in each standard and by applying the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.525, Education Department, dated 29.12.1997 with regard to the teacher-pupil ratio i.e 1:40 as interpreted by the Full Bench of our High Court reported in 2006(5) CTC 385 in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and 6 Others. Vs.S.Vigila and another, the sanctioned strength of 12 teachers are not sufficient, out of which, one already remained vacant and the impugned order of the second respondent, on the basis of the attendance of the students on the date of inspection, without considering the total strength of the students is without jurisdiction and is illegal. 5. Vs.S.Vigila and another, the sanctioned strength of 12 teachers are not sufficient, out of which, one already remained vacant and the impugned order of the second respondent, on the basis of the attendance of the students on the date of inspection, without considering the total strength of the students is without jurisdiction and is illegal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/ Correspondent has also supported the contention so raised on the side of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would try to justify the impugned order by furnishing particulars of the number of standards, number of students and number of periods in each subject total period to teach etc and would contend that the strength of teachers already sanctioned is more than the ratio fixed in the G.O above referred. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8. The facts that the third respondent school is having upto 10th standard and having one section each in 6 to 8th standards and two sections each in 9th and 10th standards and total strength of the students were 192 as on the date of the appointment of the petitioner and as on the date of the sanctioning 12 teaching staff i.e. 1+11 are not seriously denied. The appointment of the petitioner, who is the junior most appointee as B.T. Assistant (Science) is declared as surplus, only on the basis of the total strength of students present on the date of the Inspection held on 10.10.2003 by the second respondent. 9. In the considered view of this Court order passed by the second respondent basing upon the number of students as on date 10.10.2003, without considering the number of standards available in total number of sections in each standards is in violation of the guidelines issued by our High Court in the Full Bench Judgment above referred to while interpreting the G.O.Ms.No.525, Education Department dated 29.12.1997, as such the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the order of our High Court made on 27.07.2010 in W.P.No.11262 of 2003, wherein our High Court is in similar circumstances pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made by the High Court after holding due inspection of the respondent school therein. The attention of this Court is also drawn to the order of our High Court made on 27.07.2010 in W.P.No.11262 of 2003, wherein our High Court is in similar circumstances pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made by the High Court after holding due inspection of the respondent school therein. The observation is extracted as follows The scope of G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 as been considered by the Honble High Court which reads as follows: "23. Keeping in view the various relevant aspects, we feel that G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 29.12.1997 should be interpreted in the following manner: 1. The ratio of students-teacher strength as indicated in the G.O. Should be interpreted each individual standard section as a unit. 2. The minimum strength of teachers required obviously should not follow 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 teaches 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 Recognised 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". 5. 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". 5. Considering the above said scope of the Government order, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case and the respondents are directed to cause the inspection in the light of the observations made by this Honourable Court. Further doing so, if the third respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are well within the ratio, they should be allowed to continue. On the contrary, if the third respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are surplus, it is open to the third respondent to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to complete the said enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that till the ate of enquiry and appropriate orders passed by the third respondent, the petitioners shall not be disturbed. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition can also be disposed of in the same line, in the order in W.P.No.11262 of 2003. 11. In the result, the second respondent/District Educational Officer is directed to inspect the third respondent school in the presence of the school management and the petitioner and thereafter to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the post held by the petitioner is surplus or not in the light of guidelines issued by our High Court and subject to conclusion so arrived at appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. The whole exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the third respondent school till the enquiry is over and appropriate order is passed by the second respondent. 12. With this the observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.