LISHA SARA JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions relate to the same issue namely, validity of retrenchment of teachers on account of division fall in schools managed by the same educational agency. WP (C) No. 27887 of 2006 is filed by one Lisha Sara Jacob challenging the Government Order by which for the purpose of retaining retrenched teachers on division fall, the teacher student ratio is reduced to 1:40 instead of 1:45 and her retrenchment which resulted on implementation of the Government Order in the school in which she was working. WP (C) No. 27253 of 2006 is filed by the same person seeking direction to the educational authority to disburse the salary and allowance of the petitioner from 15/07/2006 onwards and for related reliefs. WP (C) No. 27046 of 2006 is filed by Smt. Bindu Varghese, the teacher on whose reversion as Part time Hindi Teacher, the petitioner in the other two writ petitions happened to be retrenched for salary and allowances. Since a decision in WP (C) No. 27887 of 2006 would dispose of all the three writ petitions, I would refer to the parties, facts and documents as available in that writ petition.

(2.) The dispute is among the petitioner, the sixth respondent and the seventh respondent. The petitioner challenges Ext. P9 Government Order whereby it has been ordered that the benefit of 1:40 teacher student ratio as prescribed in GO (P) No. 175/99/G.Edn. dated 26/07/1999 as against the ratio of 1:45 prescribed by the Kerala Education Rules (for short 'KER') would be extended to the academic year 2006-2007 also as a special case in the schools affected by the specific problem of division fall for the limited purpose of accommodating the teachers rendered surplus, subject to the condition that no post would be created on this account. In Ext. P9, the Educational Officers were also directed to revise the staff fixation orders accordingly wherever found necessary. On implementation of Ext. P9, the petitioner was rendered surplus and retrenched from service, which fate would have fallen on the sixth respondent if the staff fixation had been done on the basis of the teacher student ratio of 1:45 as prescribed in the Kerala Education Rules. The situation arises in the following factual scenario.

(3.) St. Mary's Upper Primary Girls' School, Eraviperoor and St. John's Higher Secondary School, Eraviperoor are two schools managed by the same educational agency which runs several aided educational institutions. The petitioner was working as Part Time Hindi Teacher in the St. Mary's U. P. Girls' School. The seventh respondent was originally Part Time Hindi Teacher in that school who was later promoted and posted as Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (Full Time) in the St. John's Higher Secondary School. The sixth respondent was recruited as H.S.A. (Hindi) in the St. John's Higher Secondary School without any prior service in the U. P. Section. These three persons were so working in the two respective schools during the academic year 2005-2006. While so, for the academic year 2006-2007, there was a division fall in the St. John's Higher Secondary School and consequent reduction of a post of H.S.A. (Hindi). As per Ext. P4 staff fixation order dated 29/07/2006, the sixth respondent was directed to be retrenched with effect from 15/07/2006. Later on, by Ext. P9 Government Order, it was directed that for the purpose of accommodating teachers rendered surplus the teacher student ratio would be taken as 1:40 for 2006-2007 also. Consequent to such order, on refixation of staff strength, the sixth respondent was retained as H.S.A. (Hindi), but the seventh respondent had to be reverted as Part Time Hindi Teacher and posted at St. Mary's U. P. Girls' School for accommodating whom the petitioner had to be retrenched from service. Therefore, the petitioner is challenging Ext. P9 Government Order, refixation of the staff strength applying the teacher student ratio of 1:40 and consequent retrenchment of the petitioner.