High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
C.P.POCKER, MANAGER v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - WP(C) No. 32274 of 2006(P)  RD-KL 2897 (8 December 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 32274 of 2006(P)
1. C.P.POCKER, MANAGER,
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI(SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.W.P.(C).No.32274 OF 2006
Dated this the 8th day of December,2006.
Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is the manager of an Aided High School. It is stated that there was some reduction in the student strength during the academic years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and applying ratio 1:40 the teachers already working in the school were permitted to continue in the school. During the Academic year 2006-07, for the purpose of staff fixation, a visit was conducted by the Officials on 12-07-06. According to the verification report, student strength warranted sanction of 60 divisions. As there is increase in the division High Level verification was conducted by the first respondent. Ext.P2 is the verification report. According to the petitioner under Rule 15(A) of Chapter XXIII KER, if the verification is done after September 2006, 10% increase will be given to the student strength for the purpose of staff fixation. He pointed out that on the date of visit namely 28-11-06, Sub-District level High School Youth Festival was going on and several students from the petitioner's school participated in the Youth Festival and petitioner's school was declared as overall champion. It is stated that if Ext.P2 Higher Level verification is given effect to there will be a chance of WPC No.32274/06 2 reduction of staff strength and a total number of 5 teachers may have to be retrenched.
2. Petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the second respondent to fix the staff fixation order by taking into account 10% allowance in the student strength as contemplated in Rule 15(A). The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P2and a direction to finalise staff fixation during year 2006-07 based on Ext.P1 report and also a direction to grant 10% increase in the student strength, if effect is given to Ext.P2.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that Rule 15(A) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case as there was no revision under Rule 12(A) and also there is no invocation of Rule 15(A) of Chapter XXIII, nor this is a case where visit is done by the DEO after September2006.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as under the later clause of Note to Rule 15(A) such subsequent verification was done on 15-11-2006 which is after September, the school is entitled to 10%.
5. The writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent o consider whether petitioner's school is entitled to increase of student strength by 10% for the only reason that Ext.P2 report is based on the verification conducted after September 2006. WPC No.32274/06 3 I leave open the contentions of the petitioner against Ext.P2. If the staff fixation order is issued without acceding to the request of the petitioner to grant increase of 10% in the student strength, it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Rule 12 (D) of Chapter XXIII of KER. I leave open the other contentions. A decision will be taken by the second respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. K.M.JOSEPH.
JUDGE.sv. WPC No.32274/06 4
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.