DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Vs. S RACHEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)Nos.1058 and 1065 of 2007 dated 11.06.2007 by which the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District declaring the first respondent as surplus and transferring her to the third respondent school therein.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as follows: The first respondent is a teacher in C.S.I. Elementary School for boys, Karur Union, Karur District. On 18.08.2006, 21.08.2006 and 31.08.2006, the educational authorities inspected the school, it was found that out of total strength of 160 students, 128 students were present and same was recorded in the inspection proceedings. Considering the need of one secondary grade teacher corresponding to the students strength, on 14.11.2006, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the school. However, the appellant herein without any justification on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997 made an erroneous calculation and declared the petitioner as surplus and transferred her to Marist Aided Elementary School (Boys) P.Udayarpatti, Kadavur Union, Karur District. The order declaring the first respondent as surplus and the consequential transfer were impugned in the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District, the appellant had contended that as per inspection reports and norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education (D1) Department dated 29.12.1997, the school can have only three teachers (1 Headmaster and 2 Secondary Grade Assistants) and therefore, the first respondent being found surplus was transferred. As the student-pupil calculation made by the appellant was contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and others Vs. S.Vigila and another reported in 2006 (5) CTC 385, the order declaring the first respondent as surplus was set aside, with a direction to the appellant to release the salary grant to the first respondent within a period of four weeks. The present appeal is directed against the said order.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties.