(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6573/A4/2001, dated 23.12.2011 insofar as the petitioner school is concerned and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.491/A1/11 dated 04.05.2012 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of Mrs.C.Nasren Rubha, Secondary Grade Teacher and confer all the consequential benefits.)
1. The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6573/A4/2001, dated 23.12.2011, insofar as the petitioner school is concerned and the consequential order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.491/A1/11, dated 04.05.2012, and quash the same, and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of Mrs.C.Nasren Rubha, Secondary Grade Teacher and confer all the consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner is a school. As per the norms of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 for the schools having students strength above 150, one post of Headmaster and five post of Secondary Grade Teachers shall be sanctioned. The petitioner school had students strength of 156 during 2011. One Headmaster of the petitioner school reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2011 and in that place, one of the Secondary Grade Teachers was appointed as Headmaster, which resulted in a vacancy in the post of Secondary Teachers, to which, one C.Nasren Rubha was appointed on 27.06.2011. The Correspondent of the petitioner school has sent a letter on 20.10.2011 seeking approval of appointment in the vacancy. The said letter has not seen the light of the day.
3. In the meanwhile, on the basis of students strength for the year 2011-12, staff sanction was made on 14.12.2011. The petitioner school has submitted that there are sanctioned post of one Headmaster and five Teachers and as on that day, one Headmaster and four Secondary Grade Teachers were available. The third respondent had assumed that one post of Secondary Grade Teacher was remaining surplus and sanctioned one post of Headmaster and four posts of Secondary Teacher for the year 2011-12.
4. Thereafter, the second respondent has sent a communication to all the Assistant Elementary Education Officers like the third respondent and stating that no appointment shall be made to surplus post. The same was communicated to all the schools which had surrendered surplus post. The petitioner school was one among them. The third respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.491/A1/2011, dated 04.05.2012, has sent a letter to the petitioner school stating that it was found during inspection that one surplus Teacher working in the said school. Therefore, directions were issued to relieve the surplus Teacher, but it has not mentioned specifically as to who was working as surplus Teacher. The petitioner school has filed the above writ petition for setting aside the letter, dated 23.12.2011, and the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 04.05.2012.
5. The second respondent has filed a counter stating that the staff sanction is one Headmaster and four Secondary Grade Teachers, totally 5 posts for students strength upto 150. Above 150, it will be 1 + 5. The petitioner school had surrendered one Teacher post on 23.12.2011 and therefore, there is no post of Secondary Grade Teacher to accommodate the Teacher C.Nasren Rubha, who was appointed on 27.06.2011 prior to the fixation of staff strength for the year 2011-12. The students strength on the basis of attendance was only 150 and therefore, the said Teacher C.Nasren Rubha cannot be appointed, as there is no post available in the school.
6. Heard both sides.
7. From the records, it is seen that during the fixation of staff strength in 2011, totally 156 students were studying as recorded by the second respondent and sanction of 6 Teachers were given for the year 2010-11. Thereafter, the staff sanction made for the year 2011-12 its students strength is seen as 151 students. In other words, its students is above 150, which entitled the school for staff sanction for one post of Headmaster and five Secondary Grade Teachers totalling to 6. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge this staff sanctioning dated 14.12.2011, on the other hand, had chosen to challenge the letter issued by the second respondent to the third respondent and his counterpart which was communicated by the third respondent school.
8. From the counter affidavit, it can be inferred that the appointment of C.Nasren Rubha was alone considered to be surplus. The petitioner school has failed to make any representation to the authorities pointing out that the appointment of said the Teacher was made on 27.06.2011 when the staff sanction was totally 6, which includes 5 Secondary Grade Teachers. Therefore, the appointment was made to a vacancy, which was sanctioned by the respondents.
9. We are aware that the Division Bench of this Court and other Judges have decided that when the sanctioned strength is available in a school, it is for the educational authorities to approve the appointment and it cannot be denied or declined on the ground of fall of students strength. Admittedly, the petitioner school's students strength is above 150 and the respondents have not come out with materials to show that it is only 150. Therefore, the factual aspect of this matter and the teacher post, which was considered as surplus in the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.491/A1/11, dated 04.05.2012, could not be ascertained. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would persistently argued that it mentioned only C.Nasren Rubha for whom the letter for approval of appointment was sent on 20.10.2011. But there are no materials produced before this court to show that the appointment of C.Nasren Rubha was considered surplus by the authorities. In the event of the said teacher continuing in the posts, the approvel of C.Nasren Rubha appointed by the petitioner school on 27.06.2011 deserved to be considered.
10. Be that as it may, in the present circumstances, to resolve the issue, it would suffice to issue a direction to the second and third respondents to pass orders on the proposal sent by the petitioner for approval of the said C.Nasren Rubha, dated 20.10.2011, in the light of the Judgment delivered in W.P(MD)No.384 of 2006, dated 04. 07.2011,within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.