R KANNAHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 29. 11. 2004 and the consequential order of deployment passed by the third respondent in so far as declaring 1 B. T. Assistant Post (Science) as surplus in 5th respondent school and direct the third respondent to fix staff strength of the 5th respondent school in the cadre of B. T. Assistant as per the norms issued in G. O. Ms. No. 525 Education dated 29. 12. 1997 issued by the first respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner herein passed B. Sc. , B. Ed. , degree and was appointed as B. T. Assistant Science in the 5th respondent school, a recognised aided school. The 5th respondent school is declared as a Christian Minority Educational Agency by this Court and the Department. The petitioner states that the third respondent fixed the staff strength of the school for standards IX and X as 194 + 180 = 374. The sanctioned strength in the High School is 8 B. T. Assistants, namely, Two B. T. Assistants (Mathematics), Three B. T. Assistants (Science) and Two B. T. Assistants (History ). The grievance of the petitioner arises on account of the third respondent declaring one B. T. Assistant in Science as a surplus, which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. It is pointed out that as per G. O. Ms. No. 525, Education dated 29. 12. 1997, for the 60 students, 2 B. T. Assistant posts are to be sanctioned and additional post shall be sanctioned for 40 students. Hence, for the student strength of 374, the school is entitled to retain not only 8 posts but also entitled to get one additional post. Hence, the third respondent declaring one B. T. Assistant (Science) as surplus is illegal.

(3.) ON notice, the third respondent filed counter wherein in paragraph 4, the third respondent admitted that the terms of G. O. Ms. No. 525, Education dated 29. 12. 1997 as well as G. O. Ms. No. 573, Education Department dated 20. 3. 1978 have to be followed. In so far as the 5th respondent school is concerned, the total pupil strength in IX standard is 194 and in X Standard is 180. Considering the total workload permissible to the 10 sections in the school, 64 periods in the allied subjects available in X Standard, there need to be five PG Assistant Teachers in order to make up the shortfall on the work load in the Higher Secondary Sections. The balance of workload available to be allotted to the B. T. Assistants in IX and X Standard is only 196 periods, for which 7 B. T. Assistants alone could be allowed. Since there are 8 B. T. Assistants, one B. T. Assistant (Science) post is held as surplus. The Government has given job protection by making deployment of the excess staff to a needy aided school. Referring to the proceedings dated 29. 11. 2004 by the third respondent that the staff strength for 2004-05 was allotted as 7 B. T. Assistants, declaring one B. T. Assistant (Science) as surplus, the respondents had followed the Government Orders, as such, there may be no grievance at all for the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner is receiving her salary from the Government funds through the 5th respondent by way of Government grant. Given the fact that under G. O. Ms. No. 525 Education Department dated 29. 12. 1997 and G. O. Ms. No. 573 Education dated 20. 3. 1978, teacher student ratio has to be fixed as per the work load of the teacher, the third respondent had held that one post of B. T. Assistant (Science) is in excess.