ORDER : (C. SARAVANAN, J.) The Petitioner, a Linguistic minority School which is getting a Government aid is before this Court. It is aggrieved by the Impugned Staff Fixation Order dated 22.12.2012, letter dated 25.02.2013 and the Appellate Order dated 12.04.2013 of the 2 nd Respondent, Chief Educational Officer. 2. By the Impugned Staff Fixation Order dated 22.12.2012, the number of posts of (Middle School) teachers in the Petitioner School have been reduced to four from six for the Academic year 2012-2013. 3. Relevant portion of the aforesaid Impugned Staff Fixation Order dated 22.12.2012 is extracted hereunder; 4. The reason for reducing the number of posts of Teachers from six to four for classes 6 th to 8 th at the Petitioner School for the Academic Year 2013-2014 as stated in the Impugned Staff Fixation Order dated 22.12.2012. It reads as follows; 5. There are no reasons stated in Column.3 of Annexure I in the aforesaid impugned staff fixation order dated 22.12.2012 with regard to reducing the number of posts of Teachers from six to four for classes 6 th to 8 th at the Petitioner School. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid staff fixation order, the Petitioner School preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the 2 nd Respondent vide order dated 25.02.2013 impugned in the present writ petition. 7. Operative Portion of the order dated 25.02.2013 rejecting the appeal preferred by the Petitioner School against the staff fixation order is as under: 8. The admitted position of Teacher-Pupil ratio for Standards 6 th to 8 th at the Petitioner School at that point of time when the cause of action arose is captured in Para 6 of the Counter Affidavit, which reads as follows: “6.It is submitted that in the above scenarios, the assessment of Grant for teaching posts in the petitioners school during 2012-2013 was found as follows: Standard English Medium Telugu Medium Total No. of Students No. of Students 6th 10 13 23 7th 23 17 40 8th 30 21 51 Total 63 51 114 It is submitted that, however, considering the two medium of classes i.e., English and Telugu, 4 teacher posts were left remained and the additional two posts which were prevailing all along only have been treated as surplus and surrendered for redeployment to the needy schools.” 9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondents have relied upon G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department , dated 29.12.1997, to justify the reduction of the number of posts of teachers from six to four at the Petitioner School for the Academic year 2012-2013. 10. It is also evident from a reading of Paragraph No.5 of the Counter Affidavit filed in support of the defense by the learned counsel for the Respondents. Para NO.5 of the Counter Affidavit reads as under; 5. As per the above G.O the teacher-pupil ratio for the standards VI to VIII has to be followed as follows: (a) The teacher-pupil ratio of 1:40 will be followed minimum of 2 Secondary Grade Teachers upto a strength of 80 will be sanctioned. (b) For every additional strength of 40, one post of Secondary Teacher will be sanctioned i.e., the third post at 100, the fourth at 140, the fifth post at 180 and so on. (c) Regarding the bifurcation of a standard, additional sections will be created when the strength exceeds 60 and so on in slabs of 40. (d) It is further humbly submitted that the above staff strength shall be fixed by the District Educational Officer concerned for High and Higher Secondary Schools. Those who may be rendered surplus strength due to application of these norms, shall as far as possible be redeployed to the needy schools. The redeployment of staff in schools shall be done by Director of School Education and Director of Elementary Education as the case may be. 11. Further, in Paragraph No.10 of the additional counter affidavit, the Respondents have stated as follows: “10. Further it is submitted that as per EMIS strength as on 01.08.2024 there are 238 students are available in the class 6,7,8 both Telugu and English medium and the staff fixation order of the Chief Educational Officer not yet received to this office and the matter being processed in the Chief Educational Office and is being expected.” 12. The law on this subject is clear. The correct interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department , dated 29.12.1997, was settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Ors Vs Tmt.S.Vigila & Ors reported in 2007-1- L.W.402. Paragraph No.23 of the aforesaid said Judgment, reads as under: “23. The law on this subject is clear. The correct interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department , dated 29.12.1997, was settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Elementary Education, Chennai & Ors Vs Tmt.S.Vigila & Ors reported in 2007-1- L.W.402. Paragraph No.23 of the aforesaid said Judgment, reads as under: “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 primarily considered by taking each individual stand-ard/section as a unit. (2) The minimum strength of teachers re-quired 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 particu-lar Standard exceeds 60, at that stage, an addi-tional 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 addi-tional 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 re-quired to be increased, the same has to be al-lowed, 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 authori-ties of the school should create additional sec-tion in respect of any particular Standard according to the need and convenience keep-ing in view the standard of eduction. This re-quirement 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 would 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. 13. The aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this Court was rendered in the year 2006 on 04.11.2006 i.e., much before the Right to Education Act , 2009, was enacted. (5)It would be obviously open to the Government to formulate appropriate norms in consonance with the above observation and provisions of the constitution. 13. The aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of this Court was rendered in the year 2006 on 04.11.2006 i.e., much before the Right to Education Act , 2009, was enacted. The Right to Education Act , 2009 was enacted in the year 2009 which came into force with effect from 26.08.2009. 14. As per the schedule appended to this aforesaid Act with regard to Middle School i.e., standards from 6 th to 8 th , the following criteria should be adopted: SI.No. Item Norms and Standards 1. Number of teachers: (b) For sixth class to eighth class (1) At least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for - (i) Science and Mathematics (ii) Social Studies; (iii) Languages. (2) At least one teacher for every thirty- five children. (3) Where admission of children is above one hundred - (i) a full time head-teacher; (ii) part time instructors for -- (A) Art Education; (B) Health and Physical Education; (C) Work Education. 15. Thus, as per the aforesaid Schedule of the Right to Education Act , 2009, it is evident that there must be at least one teacher for each class. In this case, admittedly, the Petitioner School is having both English Medium and Telugu Medium for standards from 6 th to 8 th , which results in a total of 6 classes at the Petitioner School. Therefore, at least 6 teachers have to be appointed for standards 6 th to 8 th at the Petitioner School. 16. Therefore, the impugned staff fixation order dated 22.12.2012 reducing the number of Teachers from six to four for standard 6 th to 8 th at the Petitioner School cannot be sustained, in the light of the changed circumstances. Even otherwise, the impugned staff fixation order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the 2 nd respondent has ignored the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. 17. Even otherwise, the impugned staff fixation order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the 2 nd respondent has ignored the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. 17. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularize the staff fixation for standards 6 th to 8 th at the Petitioner School and release the salary that was due and payable to the Petitioner School from the year 2012-2013 till date within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the above observations. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.