Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3873/A3/2008 dated 31.10.2008 and consequential order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No. 42233/G3/2008 dated 09.1.2009 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to restore the post of Secondary Grade Teacher to the petitioner’s school. 2. According to the petitioner, the primary school was permanently recognized by the District Education Council by resolution dated 28.12.1923 and the school has been started as early as on 1903 and they had five sanctioned teaching post from 2003 onwards including 1 Headmaster and 2 Secondary Grade Teachers. A vacancy arose for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher due to resignation of one Murugan on 19.3.2008 and the said resignation was duly approved by the second respondent and the said post was vacant. However, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3873/A3/2008 dated 31.10.2008, the teaching staff to the petitioner school for the year 2009-2009 was fixed as one Headmaster and 3 Secondary Grade Teachers and shown one post as surplus. But at the same time, as per the investigation report, the students strength was recorder as 179 and in that report they also acknowledged that there is one post vacant. Their main ground of attack was when there are 5 sections functioning in the school from 1 to 5, the one post cannot be called as surplus and that is only a vacant post and they are entitled to have the post granted to them. 2.2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the strength of the school has to be fixed in accordance with the decision of the full Bench of this Court in DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHENNAI-6 AND OTHERS V. S. VIGILA ( 2006 (5) CTC 385 ) and also as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER V. RACHEL JAYAPAULIN & ANOTHER and especially when there are 5 classes there should be atleast one teacher and, therefore, definitely the school is entitled to 5 numbers of teaching staff which hitherto they are enjoying. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal especially when the Full Bench has categorically stated that the minimum strength of teachers should not fall below number of standards/sections in school. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal especially when the Full Bench has categorically stated that the minimum strength of teachers should not fall below number of standards/sections in school. In that school there are 5 sections which is duly inspected and found correct by the respondents. In fact the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already made a representation in this regard as early as on 09.1.2009 bringing forth all these details and also explaining the fact that there are 5 sections and number of students studying in the school is 170 to 180 students. Therefore, they are entitled to get 5 teachers, for which no other has been passed. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned Government Advocate filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is started that as per G.O.No. 525 dated 29.12.1997, the strength was fixed at 1:40. Since maximum number of students available at the time of inspection is 158 only, the maximum number of teacher eligible is 4 and, therefore, the impugned order was correctly passed. Hence, he would sustain the order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugned order passed by the authority reducing the teaching staff from 5 to 4 in respect of the school, which had more than five classed and had a strength of 167 to 185 students and especially the school which is running for more than 100 years is correct? 6. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in as well as the Division Bench of this Court, Wherein, after Considering the G.O. No. 525, it has been very categorically held that when there are 5 sections of classes and if there is a minimum of 20 students per class, definitely other classes should take a teacher irrespective of the fact that it is less than 200. In this connection, it is worthwhile to extract paragraph 23 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHENNAI-6 AND OTHERS V. VIGILA (cited supra). “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. In this connection, it is worthwhile to extract paragraph 23 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, CHENNAI-6 AND OTHERS V. VIGILA (cited supra). “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 Standard/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) It 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 in not only in respect of aided schools or Government Schools, but also in respect of any Private Recognised School. In other words, this ration is to be maintained for any school which require 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.” The said decision of the Full Bench was also followed by the Division Bench of this court in THE DISTRICT ELIMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER V. RACHEL JAYAPAULIN & ANOTHER (cited supra). Paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as follows: 4. Per contra, Mr. G. Maruthiah, learned for the first respondent submitted that the order Full Bench decision of this Court which laid down the manner in which G.O. Ms. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as follows: 4. Per contra, Mr. G. Maruthiah, learned for the first respondent submitted that the order Full Bench decision of this Court which laid down the manner in which G.O. Ms. No. 525, school Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997 has to be interpreted and therefore, it does not require any interpreted. He further submitted that as the Government has not disbursed the salary grant, the teacher is put to hardship. 7. From these two judgments, it is clear that when there are 5 classes there should be atleast one teacher including 1 Headmaster and in this case, admittedly, 1 Headmaster and three teachers are granted and even though, earlier, 4 teachers were granted, in the impugned order they have taken away one teacher. Therefore, the impugned order is not in consonance with the decision of the Full Bench decision of this Court. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. 8. At the same time, the petitioner has made a representation on 01.1.2009 putting forward the strength of the school as well as need and necessity of the appointment of 1 vacant post. Therefore, the authority is directed to consider and pass orders on the representation in consonance and in accordance with the decisions of the Full Bench of this court and the Division Bench of this court within a reasonable time, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.