MONY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.P.No.3806 of 1991- C is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondents in the Original Petition are the respondents herein. The appellant/petitioner, High School Assistant in the school run by the third respondent, sought the quashing of Ext. P2 dated 3-4-1989, the staff fixation order passed by the District Educational Officer, Kollam which was affirmed in appeal by the Additional Director of Public Instruction by Ext. P4 dated 7-3-1990 and in revision by the Government, by Ext. P7 dated 25-2-1991. In passing the staff fixation order (Ext. P2) for the year 1988-89, the District Educational Officer found that there are 55 students in Std.X with an excess strength of 5 pupils, but he sanctioned only one division for Std.X. The management was permitted to retain the excess strength of 5 students in Std.X and it was observed that one additional post of High School Assistant was not sanctioned for want of accommodation. In appeal by the Manager of the school, one of the contentions pressed, which is in controversy herein, was that two divisions should have been sanctioned for Std.X. The Additional Director of Public instruction, Trivandrum (the Appellate Authority) found that the effective strength in Std.X during the year 1988-89 was 55 and the admissible divisions are two. But, only one division was allowed. It was so done, since no sufficient accommodation for sanctioning the 2nd division in Std. X was available. The plea in that regard was rejected. In revision, the Government, by Ext. P7 order dated 25-2-1991, affirmed the said orders. It was held that reckoning the availability of accommodation as per Circular No.H2-33422/68/D.Dis. dated 30-6-68, it could be seen that the accommodation pointed out by the Manager for sanctioning the additional division will not satisfy the specifications in that regard and in the light of the total rooms available, the request for sanction of additional division in Std.X did not merit consideration. The appellant/petitioner challenged the aforesaid staff fixation order (Ext. P2), the appellate order (Ext. P4) and the revisional order (Ext. P7) in the Original Petition.

(2.) A learned single Judge of this Court, after adverting to the plea of the appellant/petitioner, held thus:

(3.) We heard counsel for the appellant Mr. S.A. Razzak. Strong reliance was placed on Chapter VII R.23 and Chapter XXIII R.4(ii) of the Kerala Education Rules to contend that the strength in Standard X being admittedly 55, a second division could be opened and two High School Assistants for that standard should have been sanctioned, as against the one sanctioned as per Ext. P2. We shall extract Chapter VII R.23 and Chapter XXIII R.4(ii) of the Kerala Education Rules.