ROHINI AMMA Vs. ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner is the Manager of a school. The District Educational Officer passed an order Ext. P-5 fixing the strength of the staff for 1967-68 under R.12(1) of Chap.23. He sanctioned four class divisions and two teachers, including the headmaster. The petitioner contending that under R.1(b) of Chap.23, he must have sanctioned four teachers including the headmaster, as there are four class divisions, filed an appeal against the order to the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction and the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction passed Ex. P-3 order dismissing the appeal.
(2.) The learned Government Pleader contended on the strength of R.22A of Chapter V that the strength of the class divisions did not reach up to the minimum required by that rule, and therefore, the Assistant Educational Officer was right in sanctioning only two teachers including the headmaster. I do not think that R.22A of Chapter V has any application to the facts here. That rule is for the purpose of deciding the question whether recognition for a school should be withdrawn or not, when the strength of the classes does not reach the minimum prescribed. That is a totally different matter. When once sanction has been given for four class divisions, I think R.12(1) of Chap.23 requires the Educational authority to sanction four teachers including the headmaster.
(3.) I therefore quash Ext. P-3 order. The petitioner has requested only for sanctioning of one more teacher. That request has to be considered in the light of the relevant rule by the third respondent and appropriate orders passed, and I direct him to do so. The petition is disposed of as above. No costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.