Uma Maheswara Higher Secondary School Committee vs The Director of School Education, The Chief Educational Officer and The District Educational Officer

G. Rajasuria, J.—This writ petition has been filed to to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the orders passed by him in his proceedings Na.Ka. No. 7207/A5/2008 dated 29.08.2008 signed on 17.09.2008 and Na.Ka. No. 3688/A5/2008 dated 18.09.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to fix the strength of the Teacher as per G.O.Ms. No. 525 School Education Department (D1) dated 29.12.1997 by taking note of the actual strength of the students and sanction as per G.O.Ms. No. 525 School Education Department (D1) dated 29.12.2007 and sanction the additional teachers for an English Medium section also as per the order of the Hon''ble Principal Bench in W.P. No. 7658 of 1986 dated 22.04.1996 and G.O.Ms. No. 525, School Education Department (D1) dated 29.12.2007, by issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

Heard both sides.

The epitome and the long and short of the grievance of the petitioner as stood exposited from the averments in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

The petitioner is the Higher Secondary School which is an aided school. Originally, Tamil was the medium of instruction in the said school. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.M.P. No. 11120 of 1986 in W.P. No. 7658 of 1986 and one other writ petition so as to enable it to get permission to start an English medium section also. Whereupon, the Government issued a communication dated 07.12.1986 in Na.Ka. No. 230107/L3/86 and as per the said communication, the authority did not commit itself to provide any additional teachers in that regard, however it granted permission for conversion of one Tamil section as English one. The petitioner is virtually entitled for additional teaching staff in view of the increased students'' strength, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Director of Elementary Education v. S. Vigila reported in 2006(5) CTC 385.

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would restrict his prayer to the effect that unjustifiably, the authority vide communication dated 18.09.2008 in Na.Ka. No. 3688/A5/2008 declared three posts as excessive posts and those three posts are not so, because already when before starting of an English medium section, those three teachers were treated as part of necessary teaching staff strength and because of the conversion of one section as English medium one, the authority went to the extent of declaring three posts as excessive and the petitioner would be satisfied if those three posts declared as part of the strength of the teaching staff and salaries paid to them.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the communication dated 07.12.1986 in Na.Ka. No. 230107/L3/86 does not say that the Government would not pay the salary to the then existing teaching staff. What the authorities stated was that because one Tamil medium section was converted into English medium section, the petitioner should not ask for more staff strength. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner also that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to supra, if the students'' strength is calculated, certainly those three posts which were declared as excessive cannot be construed as excessive. Accordingly, he prayed for issuing necessary direction in this regard.

Whereas the learned Government Advocate placing reliance on the counter filed by the second respondent, would develop his argument to the effect that the proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 3688/A5/2008 dated 18.09.2008 is perfectly in order and the three teaching staff held to be excessive cannot be provided with the salary; the Full Bench decision of this Court is related to the Elementary Education and the present case is relating to the Higher Secondary Education and separate guidelines have been issued in G.O.Ms. No. 525 School Education Department (D1) dated 29.12.2007 and accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 4663 of 2005 dated 16.02.2008 which was filed by the same petitioner herein and in that, this Court held as under:

In view of the above position declared by the Full Bench of this Court and since there was sufficient students'' strength in the school, to retain those three teacher posts, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent is set aside and consequently, the respondents are directed to retain those three teacher posts. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition No. 4994 of 2005 is closed.

and would argue that earlier this Court, clearly and categorically held that those three posts should not be considered as excessive and it should be retained and accordingly, the order of the authority concerned declaring those three posts as excessive ones, was set aside. In such a case, the authorities are not to be heard reiterating their earlier stand which was rejected by this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also state that no appeal has been filed as against the order of this Court dated 16.02.2008 in W.P. No. 4663 of 2005 and from the Government, there is nothing to indicate to the contrary. It is also to be noted that in the said judgment referred to supra, the Full Bench of this Court has been relied on and in such a case, the contention of the authority to the contrary in the counter that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court is not applicable to this case is totally untenable. In fact, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit convincingly that the authority by passing the impugned order dated 18.09.2008 committed contempt of Court as that order runs counter to the earlier order of this Court dated 16.02.2008 in W.P. No. 4663 of 2005.

Hence, in this factual matrix, no more elaboration is required in this regard. I could see considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in commensurate with the decision already rendered by this Court, the authority has to be directed to pay the salary for those three teaching staff also. There is absolutely no necessity to once again undertake the rigmorale of scrutinising the facts already decided in the earlier judgment of this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would additionally make an extempore submission that already the representations were given to the authorities concerned for increasing more the staff strength based on the students'' strength as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. It is open for them that on receipt of a copy of this order to approach the authorities concerned and air their grievance whereupon the authorities concerned shall consider those aspects in accordance with law for increasing over and above the existing staff strength on merits.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the authorities concerned to pay the salary for the said three teaching staff also from the date on which the authority stopped paying salary to them. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.