JOHNSON Vs. MANAGER, ST. GEORGE'S HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a last grade servant in the first Respondent's school. He was appointed as a full time menial with effect from 1st January 1982 as against the third sanctioned vacancy of full time menial in the said school during the academic year 1983 -84. The second Respondent District Educational Officer visited the school on 25th July 1983 and on the basis of the said visit issued Ext. P -1 staff fixation order dated 30th July 1983 fixing the staff strength of the school, whereby one post of full -time menial was abolished on the basis that the effective total strength of the students in the school was below 1500 namely, 1492. Aggrieved by Ext. P -1, the manager of the school made a representation to the 6th Respondent -State Government seeking a re -visit by the District Educational Officer, for the purpose of re -fixation of the staff strength. Accordingly the second Respondent re -visited the school on 20th September 1983 and the report of the re -visit is submitted as Ext. P -1 (a). It was found that there was some increase in the strength of the school. According to the Petitioner the increase is sufficient for sanctioning the continuance of the third full -time post of menial, but according to the Department it was still not sufficient to justify the continuation of the third full -time post of menial in the school. As against Ext. P -1 a statutory appeal was filed before the third Respondent -Deputy Director of Education who rejected the said appeal by Ext. P -3 order. A revision was filed against Ext. P -3 before the 4th Respondent -Director of Public Instruction which was also rejected as per Ext. P -4. A further revision was filed before the 5th Respondent -Government but without success. Ultimately the Petitioner filed O.P. No. 4561/84 before this Court which was disposed of by Ext. P -7 judgment directing re -consideration of the entire issues raised by the 5th Respondent and directing the 5th Respondent to issue appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Government by Ext. P -8 order re -considered the revision petition as directed by Ext. P -7 judgement, but rejected the contentions of the Petitioner. Hence this Original Petition.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate Shri A.R. Prakasam, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the interpretation given by the Government regarding the applicability of Rule 12 in Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules is absolutely wrong. However he further contended that even assuming that Rule 12 is applicable in the present case as contended by the Government, the decision regarding the abolition of the post of third full -time menial on the basis that there was not sufficient strength of students is wrong in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the actual attendance as on the day of re -visit of the D.E.O. was 1447. As per Rule 12 of Chapter XXIII it is permissible to add 5 per cent of the total roll strength of the students to the total number of the students actually present, provided such addition does not exceed the roll strength of the school. In the present case, the total roll strength of the school is 1526. If 5 per cent of the roll strength is added to the actual number of students present on the day of the re -visit, the total would work out to be 1523, thereby justifying the continuance of the third full -time post of menial in the school.

(3.) AS per Rule 3 of Chapter I of the K.E.R., the Government is given power to grant exemption to mitigate hardships in the implementation of any rule in a particular case. The Government have been admittedly issuing orders from time to time exempting the application of the rule whereby the re -admitted students are excluded from being reckoned for the purpose of calculating the total strength of the school. As per Ext. P -12, the Government have extended the benefit of exemption in this regard during the academic year 1983 -84 also. The validity of Ext. P -12 is not challenged before me by anyone. Further, the 5th Respondent stand by Ext. P -12 and I cannot ignore Ext. P -12 in this regard. At any rate, the 5th Respondent after having applied Ext. P -12 in respect of every other school in the State, cannot take the stand that it is not applicable in respect of the Petitioner's school alone. Thus in calculating the student strength as on the date of re -visit of the second Respondent, three students who were re -admitted to the school as well as two students who were newly admitted after the 6th working day are bound to be reckoned with the addition of 5 per cent roll strength to the actual attendance of 1447, and then the total strength of students as on the re -visit of the D.E.O. would work out to be 1526, thereby justifying the continuance of the third full -time post of menial. Therefore, in the absence of any rule preventing the inclusion of newly admitted students after the 6th working day for the purpose of calculating the total strength and in view of Ext. P -12 whereby re -admitted students are permitted to be included, there is no justification for discontinuance of the third post of full -time menial in the Petitioner 's school on the basis of Ext. P -1 (a) report of re -visit by the second Respondent -District Educational Officer.