SUKKORE Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEREAFTER the District Educational Officer, the 3rd resondent, made a verification visit and finding Oval there were only 27 muslim pupils present the School on the day of visit, issued Ext. P2 notice to the manager directing him to show cause why the post of an Arabic teacher sanctioned under Ext. P1 shall not be cancelled. lt was mentioned therein that the effective strength is only 27. The roll strength of each standard was less then 10 and total of all the 4 classes was 28. Hence there was no scope for allowing 5 per cent random on visit attendance for calculating effective strength. Therefore, sanction of Arabic post was irregular. After hearing the Manager, the 3rd respondent issued Ext. P3 order cancelling the post of Arabic teacher in the school for the academic year 1991-92. The appeal filed by the Manager before the Deputy Director and before the Director of Public Instruction were also rejected under Exts. P4 and PS,orders. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision before the Government, which was also rejected under Ext. P6 order dated 29-12-1992.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner mat the authorities had failed to apply the provisions contained under R. 12 of Chapter xiii of the Kerala Education Rules while fixing the effective strength. According to the petitioner, if 5% is added to the total strength of the school as verified on the date of verification, the effective strength will be 28. If that be so, there is no necessity to abolish the post of Arabic teacher.

(3.) THE petitioner has a further prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction a post of Arabic language teacher in the School of the 1st respondent for the academic year 1992-93. This is a matter which he has to agitate before the educational authorities at the first instance before coming to this Court. THErefore, no relief is granted on this count to the petitioner. But it is made clear that no view is expressed by this court on the claim put forward by the petitioner for the academic year 1992-93. In the result, the original petition stands dismissed subject to the above observations. . .