SAROJINI AMMA Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE 6c of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education rules, 1959, lays down: "in an Upper Primary School or Upper Primary sections of High School, where any of the languages other than regional languages or mother tongue is first introduced in Standard V there shall be not less than 12 pupils learning the language in that Standard. When once it is introduced in Standard V there shall be at least half the number of pupils to learn that language in Standard VI or the total number in Standards V, VI and VII shall not be less than 30. But nothing in these rules will apply to posts already sanctioned against which qualified teachers are working. " The first petitioner, the Manager of the school, appointed the second petitioner to be a part-time Sanskrit Teacher, the post having been sanctioned by the 2nd respondent. Assistant Educational Officer on the basis of the staff fixation for the year 1973-74. Subsequently the 2nd petitioner was appointed to be a full-time Sanskrit teacher with effect from 15-7-1978 by the 2nd respondent in terms of his order No. 3665/78/g dated 30-61978. While matters stood like this, on 18-10-1980 the Ist respondent, the director of Public Instructions, Trivandrum, issued notice No. SL (2) 112128/80 dated 11-10-1980, a true copy of which is Ext. P1, calling upon the 1st petitioner to make representations, if any, against the proposal to abolish the sanskrit post and consequent reduction of the number of posts in the school. Therein it was pointed out that the effective strength of pupils studying sanskrit were 7 in Standard V and 5 in Standards VI and VII and that as per r. 6c of Chapter XXIII of the. K. E. R the total number of pupils studying the non-regional languages shall not be less than 30 in UP. section for the continuance of the post. Ext. P2 is the copy of the representation submitted by the 1st petitioner to the 1st respondent in response to Ext P1 notice. Therein it was pointed out that the strength and attendance of Sanskrit pupils of the school from 1977-78 to 1980-81 were as follows: It was also pointed out that the benefit of the word "or" in R. 6c might be extended to the post of Sanskrit teachers also as in the case of Arabic teachers. In spite of the request made by the Ist petitioner in Ext. P2 representation for retention of the post, by Order No. SL (2)/80 dated 17121980 made in proceedings of the 1st respondent, a true copy of which is Ext. P3, in the purported exercise of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent under R. 1 2e (3),15 and 16 of Chapter XXIII of the K. E. R. , the post of Sanskrit teacher in the school was abolished with effect from the date of that order. It is aggrieved by this order of the Ist respondent that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioners submitted that to satisfy the requirements of R. 6c, only the following conditions need be satisfied: " (i) when any of the languages other than regional languages or the mother tongue is first introduced in Standard V. there should be not less than 12 pupils learning that language in that Standard; and (ii) once that language is introduced in Standard V, there shall be not less than half the number of pupils to learn that language in Standard VI, or. in the alternative, the total number of pupils in Standards v, VI and VII shall not be less than 30. " THEre is no dispute, it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, thai, when Sanskrit was first introduced, the first of the conditions, namely, the requirement of having not less than 12 pupils to study that language, was fulfilled. After the stage of introduction of that language, the requirements of the rule would be satisfied, according to him, if it is also shown that not less than half the number of students which was the minimum for introduction of that language in Standard V was there in Standard VI for studying that language or that the total number of students studying that language in Standards V, VI and VII was not less than 30. In other words, for retention of the post once sanctioned for the language in question, it would be sufficient to show either that in the VIth Standard not less than half the number of pupils who were studying that language in the Vth Standard were available or that the aggregate number of pupils studying that language in the Upper primary Classes, namely, Standards V, VI and VII was not less than 30. According to the counsel for the petitioners the figures furnished by him in para. 3 of the writ petition would go to show that in no year the number of pupils studying Sanskrit in the VIth Standard was less than half the number of minimum pupils who were required to learn that language in the Vth Standard when it was introduced in that class, and once that condition is shown to have been satisfied the continuation of the post should follow automatically.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in any event the 2nd petitioner is entitled to the protection under G. O. MS. 62/ 73 dated 2-5-1973. In view of my conclusion that the number of pupils learning sanskrit in Standard VI during the material time was shown to be not less than half the minimum number of pupils who studied Sanskrit in Standard V when it was first introduced in Standard V, and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim that the post was to continue, I do not think that it is necessary for me to decide the question whether the 2nd petitioner is or is not entitled to the protection under the said Government Order. I leave it open without being decided. For the foregoing reason Ext. P3 is quashed and it is declared that the 2nd petitioner is entitled to continue in service on the strength of the appointment already made. THE writ petition is allowed as above. In the circumstances of the case I would direct the parties to bear their respective costs. . .