SHEELA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A copy of the Original Petition is served on learned government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. I find it unnecessary to issue notice to the third respondent. I have heard both sides.

(2.) THE dispute in this case arises out of Ext. P1 staff fixation order dated 30-10-1985 passed by the second respondent in regard to Victory High School , Olathanni of which the third respondent is the Manager. THE High School had standards 5 to 10. During the previous year 19 divisions had been sanctioned. Under Ext. P1, 18 divisions were sanctioned. THEre was a reduction of one division for standards 5 and 9 and increase of one division for standard 10. Petitioner and the third respondent are aggrieved by the fall in division strength of standard 9. Third respondent filed a revision before the State Government. Petitioner had also approached the State Government with a revision. As per judgments of this Court in earlier o. Ps, the State Government considered the objections of the petitioner and the third respondent and rejected the same under Ext. P3 order dated 9-7-1987. This order is now challenged.

(3.) WE are concerned only with the student strength of standard 9. The roll strength on the 12th working day was 158. The verified attendance on 1-10-1985 was 132. As per the guidelines 5% of the roll strength would be added to the verified attendance and thus the effective strength of standard 9 was arrived at as 140. If the student strength is between 96 and 140, only three divisions could be allowed. There is no dispute about this proposition. That is why the second respondent allowed only three divisions for standard 9.