SREE VIDHYA HIGH SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this original petition the manager of the Sree Vidhya High School, Eruthenpathy, Palakkad District, challenges Exts. P4, P7 and P12 orders of the Joint Director of Public Instruction and the Government, refusing sanction for the post of Drawing Teacher in the school, in addition to the post of Music Teacher, for the academic year 1990-91, in accordance with R.6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the KER. The said post was not sanctioned in the staff fixation order for the year 1990-91, which is Ext. P3 issued by the DEO, Palakkad. Petitioner's appeal before the Joint Director of Public Instruction was rejected by Ext. P4 order. The petitioner filed a revision before the Government, which was also rejected by Ext. P7 order. Petitioner filed O.P.No.9555/1991 before this court challenging Ext. P7 order on the ground that in view of Exts.P9 and P10 Government orders, the school is entitled to an additional post of Drawing Teacher also. In that original petition, by Ext. P11 judgment, a learned Judge of this court set aside Ext. P7 order and directed the Government to reconsider the matter with reference to Exts.P9 and P10 orders of the Government in relation to revision of school curriculum in the high schools in the State. It is pursuant to the said judgment that the Government reconsidered the matter and passed Ext. P12 order again rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of R.6(4) of Chapter XXIII of the KER, high school section of every complete high school is entitled to one full time post each of Physical Education Teacher, Drawing Teacher and Music Teacher irrespective of the number of periods of work per week in each of the concerned subject. He has also got a contention that in any event, the number of periods for each subject has to be calculated in accordance with the revised curriculum approved by the Government as per Exts.P9 and P10, in which case, there would be an additional post of Drawing Teacher also for the school. On these averments the petitioner seeks the following reliefs in this original petition.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims of the petitioner. According to the counter affidavit, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-rule 4 of R.6 of Chapter XXIII of KER have to be read in conjunction with the provisos to that rule. According to them, as per the second proviso, no full time post of specialist teacher under any of the three categories mentioned in Sub-rule 4 shall be sanctioned if the number of periods per week in the concerned subject is less than 5. They would submit that going by the approved distribution of periods as per Chapter XXIII of KER, the total number of periods for Drawing and Music together (Art subjects), is only six and therefore, both posts of Drawing Teacher and Music Teacher cannot be sanctioned. According to them, Exts. P9 and P10 Government orders have never been implemented in the state by appropriate amendments to the Rules in view of the financial stringency of the State and therefore, the petitioner cannot establish any right for an additional post of Drawing Teacher based on these Government orders.