Judgment :- 1. The learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. On consent the writ petition is taken for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The writ petition is filed against the order of the second respondent in his proceedings Na. Ka. No.4783/A3/09, dated 17.02.2010 to quash the same and to direct the second respondent to grant permission to the petitioner, to fill up the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the vacancy arose due to the direct recruitment of Tmt. Shanthameena in the Government Panchayat Union School by an order of the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No.7151/A3/07 dated 29.02.2008. 4. The brief facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are: The petitioner school was established as Primary School in the year 1915 and the same was upgraded as Middle School in the year 1970. The Middle School is presently having 1 to 8 standards with an average strength of 120 students. The petitioner’s school was originally sanctioned 9 teaching posts i.e. 1 – Graduate Headmaster, 1 B.T. Teacher, 5 Secondary Grade Teachers, 1 Physical Education Teacher and 1 – Pre Vocational Instructor. However, during the year 2008, the second respondent / the District Elementary Educational Officer, Cuddalore District, by an order dated 29.02.2008, deployed two Secondary Grade Teachers to different schools, resulting in reduction of total sanction strength of the teaching post in the petitioner’s School as ‘7’ i.e. one Graduate Headmaster, one B.T. Teacher, three Secondary Grade Teachers, one Physical Education Teacher and one Pre vocational Instructor. The second respondent has also passed another order of deployment on 14.03.2009, thereby deploying one more Secondary Grade Teacher by name Mr. G. Shankar to some other school and the said person was not relieved by the Management. The same was challenged by Mr. Shankar in w.P.No.20147 of 2008 for directing the management to implement the order of deployment, by relieving him from the 4th respondent School. The relief sought for in the writ petition was challenged by School Management mainly on the ground that already one of the Secondary Grade Teacher was by name Tmt. The same was challenged by Mr. Shankar in w.P.No.20147 of 2008 for directing the management to implement the order of deployment, by relieving him from the 4th respondent School. The relief sought for in the writ petition was challenged by School Management mainly on the ground that already one of the Secondary Grade Teacher was by name Tmt. Shanthameena, was relieved, in pursuant to the order of transfer and in the event of the present impugned order of deployment, dated 14.03.2008 being implemented, the same would amount to reduction in the sanctioned strength of Teaching staff, which would in turn affect the standard of the institution and the interest of the children studying there. The Hon’ble High Court has accepted the contention made by the Management and observed that the order of the second respondent dated 14.03.2008 cannot be given effect to and directed the 4th respondent Management to relieve the teacher as and when the management exceeds the cadre strength by implementing the order of the second respondent dated 14.03.2008. In pursuant to the order, the said teacher by name G. Shankar, continued in the petitioner’s school. 5. The second respondent issued another order thereby deploying the same teacher, by name G. Shankar, in his order dated 24.03.2010 and the same was again challenged by the Management in w.P.No.6558 of 2010. The operation of the order of the deployment was in M.P.No.2010 stayed by our High Court on the ground that it is Prima facie in violation of full bench judgment of this Court in Director of Elementary Education vs. S. Vigila, reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 . In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent has also passed the impugned order, dated 17.02.2010 in and underwhich one of the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, which is lying vacant in the present Petitioner School is declared as surplus and is directed to be surrendered. Further direction issued to the petitioner School, is not to make any claim to restore the same post, declared as surplus. The Management has come forward with this writ petition, questioning the correctness of the order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner school. 6. Heard the rival submission made on either side. 7. Further direction issued to the petitioner School, is not to make any claim to restore the same post, declared as surplus. The Management has come forward with this writ petition, questioning the correctness of the order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner school. 6. Heard the rival submission made on either side. 7. From the facts made available herein, it is seen that the petitioner school is Aided Middle School having I to VIII Standards and as per the Full Bench Judgment of our High Court reported in 2006 5 CTC 385 followed by the Division Bench of our High Court reported in in the District Elementary Educational Officer v. S. Rachel Jeyapaulin & Another, the minimum strength of the teachers required obviously should not fall below the number of Standards / Section in a school. By applying Clause-II of interpretation given in para 23 of the Full Bench judgment, the sanctioned strength of the present school should be 1 + 7 whereas, original sanction strength is admittedly 1 + 6 out of which two secondary grade teachers are already deployed to different schools and the remaining sanctioned strength is 1 + 4 which is far below the number of standards as such any action of the respondent to declare as surplus, the posts already exist is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Full Bench Judgment and renders the impugned order to be liable, to be set aside and consequently, the petitioner Management has to be necessarily permitted to fill up the existing vacant post, arising due to the transfer of the teacher by name Tmt. Shanthameena. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.