MONI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Manager of a Lower Primary School is the writ petitioner. THE Ext. P9 order passed by the Government disallowing sanction for an additional division in first standard is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE main question involved in this writ petition relates to the fixation of staff strength in the first standard for the year 1989-90. THE 3rd respondent, Assistant Educational officer inspected the school for the fixation of the staff strength on 28-6-89. During the inspection he had recorded roll strength as well as verified strength in respect of standard I to iv. THE roll strength of standard I is 73 whereas verified strength is 55. Likewise, for standard IV roll strength is 76 whereas verified strength is 72. Ext. P2 is the copy of the report on verification made by the 3rd respondent. On the basis of Ext. P2 the Assistant Educational Officer observed that the school was entitled to get two more divisions, one in standard I and another in standard IV. At present there is no dispute with regard to the fixation of the strength in standard IV and dispute only confines to the staff strength in standard I. THE 2nd respondent thereafter made a verification on 21-8-89. On that day due to epidemic spread out in the area, the number of pupils attending in the 1st standard was very much low. THErefore the result of the verification by the 2nd respondent was not in favour of the petitioner as far as the 1st standard is concerned. Ext. P3 is the copy of the report of the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the Ext. P3 report, the Assistant Educational Officer has passed Ext. P4 fixing the staff strength of the 1st standard as one. According to the petitioner, there was sufficient number of students in the 1st standard for ordering an additional division. THErefore he submitted a representation before the 1st respondent on 22-8-89 for a direction to the authorities concerned to revisit and refix the staff strength of 1st standard in view of the provisions contained in Explanation 4 to Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII of the kerala Education Rule. Ext. P5 is the copy of the representation. THEreupon the government have given a reply to the petitioner dated 28-8-89 informing that necessary direction had been given to the 2nd respondent in so far as the fixation of the staff strength in the 1st standard. Ext. P6 is the copy of the reply given by the Government, subsequently the 2nd respondent made a revision 25-9-89 and found that the attendance in the 1st standard was 58 as against the roll strength of 68. Ext. P7 is the copy of the report of revisit made by the 2nd respondent. In spite of Ext. P7 report, necessary sanction for additional division was not given. In that situation the petitioner again approached the government as per Ext. P8 representation. That representation was disposed of as per Ext. P9 order by the 1st respondent. THE said order is under challenge

(3.) BUT the question that requires to be considered is whether Ext. P7 can be relied upon for sanctioning the second division in the first standard. As pointed out above Ext. P7 is the copy of the report regarding the re-visit. That is a report prepared in view of the provisions contained in Explanation IV to Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII. This provision authorises the Government to issue direction to the Educational Officer to revisit and refix the strength of the teaching staff in case the Government are satisfied that the effective strength of any division is likely to have been diminished in any particular year by any reason whatsoever. It is for the government to consider whether on the basis of the report of the revisit, a new division can be granted in a particular case. The object of the revisit itself would be defeated in case such consideration is not made. The Government in such circumstances shall afford sufficient attention to the substantive provision contained in Rule 23, which deals with maximum strength of a class division. The predominant purpose behind Rule 23 is to afford sufficient facility for the students to attend a class division and obtain instructions from teachers providing healthy atmosphere and avoiding congestion. The appointment of a teacher for an additional division is only incidental to fixation of strength of students and it can not said to be a paramount consideration under Rule 23.