ORDER : M.M. Sundresh, J. Considering the fact that both the Contempt Application and the Review Application arise out of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.628 of 2014 dated 24.01.2017, they had been taken up and disposed of by a common order. 2. For the sake of bravity, the parties arrayed in the Contempt Petition, are taken as such, while disposing of these matters. 3. The management namely, the fifth respondent has been running 21 classes. This is evidenced by the inspection reports dated 08.02.2011, 29.07.2011 and 30.08.2011. These inspection reports have been signed by the school authorities. These reports also indicate that 21 teachers are working in the fifth respondent management. By the report dated 05.03.2012 the Review Petitioners unilaterly resumed one post. 4. The petitioner was appointed on 15.06.2011. However, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved on the premise that he has been appointed in surplus post. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Appeal on the premise that the post being a sanctioned one, an approval can not be rejected. If there is a fall in strength and consequently the post become surplus, a teacher concerned along with the post will have to be transfered by way of deployment to a needy school. As the surplus post has been declared on 12.01.2012, which is subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, the order impugned can not be sustained. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners would submit that the post has been surplused even much prior to the appointment of the petitioner. Merely because the teacher has not been transferred/deployed after notifying the surplus post, the same cannot became a sanctioned one. By way of a reply the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Director of Elementary Education Vs. S. Vigila reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 has to be seen contestively. If sub paragraph 3 of paragraph 23 is taken into consideration and apply to the case of the petitioner with respect to the students strength, then, it cannot be said that there are 21 sanctioned posts available. 6. S. Vigila reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385 has to be seen contestively. If sub paragraph 3 of paragraph 23 is taken into consideration and apply to the case of the petitioner with respect to the students strength, then, it cannot be said that there are 21 sanctioned posts available. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no ground for review, as the Hon'ble Division Bench has taken into consideration of relevant materials including the visit report culminating in the order of the District Educational Officer, dated 09.02.2012, which in turn, resulted in the order dated 05.03.2012 and therefore, no interference is required, as, such request on behalf of the review petitioners is nothing but rehearing. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the inspection reports available as on 08.02.2011 much prior to the appointment of the petitioner would clearly indicate the factum of availability of 21 posts much to the knowledge of the school authorities duly signed by them. In any case, they cannot go contrary to the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court referred supra. When once the strength exceeds 40 and goes beyond 60, then, the necessity for one more teacher for a class would arise. Therefore, if paragraph 23 of the Full Bench Judgment having been applied with as noted by the school authorities themselves in the inspection reports, it cannot be termed that there exists surplus post. If that is a case, the teacher who retired, would have transferred and deployed even much prior to the appointment of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.628 of 2014 and submits that what is to be considered is the students strengths at the time of appointment of a teacher and not the position exists thereafter. A sanctioned strength would not get managed, but in the event of the strength being reduced, the post would become surplus along with the incumbent, who is liable to be deployed/transferred, which situation has not arisen or not given effect. Thus, the learned counsel submits no interference required. 9. The facts are not in dispute and so the documents filed. The inspection report referred supra would clearly indicates the existence of 21 posts. These factors have been taken note of during the time of inspection. Thus, the learned counsel submits no interference required. 9. The facts are not in dispute and so the documents filed. The inspection report referred supra would clearly indicates the existence of 21 posts. These factors have been taken note of during the time of inspection. The order, dated 05.03.2012 also for the first time speaks about the resumption of the post. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed much ealier to that. Though the import of the Hon'ble Full Bench Judgment was not seriously taken note of or discussed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the ratio laid down therein cannot be brushed aside being of a binding nature as against the review petitioners. If that ratio is taken into consideration, then there is no difficulty in holding that the order passed by the Hob'ble Division Bench, which is sought to be reviewed, does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. In W.A.(MD)No.1123 of 2016, dated 09.08.2016, after taking note of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench, it has been held as follows:- “Similarly, so far as the private schools are concerned, G.O.Ms.No.250 states that minimum strength of any primary school shall be 20. The second teacher will be allowed where the overall average attendance is 30 and above; two teachers if the average attendance of the combined standards is 30 and above; three teachers if it exceeds 55; 4 teachers if it exceeds 75 and 5 teachers if it exceeds 95. One section in a standard, if the student strength is upto35; two sections, if the strength is between 35 and 70; three sections if the strength is between 71 and 105; four sections if the strength is between 106 and 140;5 sections if it is between 141 and 175 and so on with the staff slab of 35. It is further stated in Clause (5) that grant shall not be calculated for more teachers than there are standards or sections in the school or than acutally employed in the school, whichever is less. (Emphasis added). Thus it is manifest that prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.525, each standard was sanctioned with a post and division of standards are made in private schools if it is more than 35 and Government Schools, if it was more than 40. The strength in one section is now increased upto 60 from 35 or 40 as the case may be. The strength in one section is now increased upto 60 from 35 or 40 as the case may be. Even in the earlier Division Bench decision in paragraph 32, same conclusion was reached.” 11. Therefore, on a conspectus of above, we are of the view that the review petition deserves to be rejected. As a consequent thereon, we are not willing to haul the review respondents for contempt, as there is no wilfull disobedience. Accordingly, the Contempt Application stands closed. Consequently, a direction is issued to the review applicants to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.628 of 2014, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.