State of Kerala & Secretary to Government, General Education Department v Corporate Manager, Corporate Educational Agency, Diocese of Idukki

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/8TH BHADRA, 1938** **WA.No. 372 of 2016** **------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 30131 OF 2015, DATED 17-12-2015 ------------------** **APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C) :** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.** **BY ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD** **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) : ----------------------------------------------------------------** **THE CORPORATE MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, DIOCESE OF IDUKKI, MANIPPARA P,O, KARIMPAN, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-686 691.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-08-2016, ALONG WITH WA. NO. 373 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** W.A.Nos.372, 373, 397, 409, 410, 411, 413, 414, 415, 421, 424, 427, 432, 436, 441, 442, 443, 444, 452, 455 , 467, 469, 484, 489, 490, 496, 504, 513, 515, 528, 512, 516, 561, 557, 598, 606, 687, 738, 412, 388, 652, 488, 494, 495, 501, 503, 507, 509, 510, 527, 531, 535, 538, 547, 549, 566, 551, 560, 570, 573, 578, 579, 580, 582, 583, 584, 587, 589, 594, 597, 591, 592, 593, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 607, 608, 610, 614, 618, 623, 624, 625, 627, 628, 629, 630, 634, 637, 633, 635, 636, 639, 643, 644, 646, 647, 653, 651, 613, 673, 688, 690, 743, 710, 727, 772, 815, 1307 & 1733 of 2016 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 30[th] day of August, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**Antony Dominic, J.**_ These appeals are filed by the State of Kerala and the official respondents in the writ petitions challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19008/13 and connected cases, which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 17[th] December 2015. 2. In these appeals, we heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and also the respective counsel appearing for the writ petitioners who have arrayed as respondents. W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 2 : 3. Although various issues were raised and decided by the learned Single Judge, the only contention that was raised before us was concerning the correctness of the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to the Pupil - Teacher Ratio (PTR) as provided in G.O.(MS)No.154/2014/G.Edn. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, while the writ petitioners/respondents herein contended that the Pupil - Teacher Ratio (PTR) as provided in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTE Act'), is to be taken class-wise, the State contended that the ratio is to be maintained on a school basis. Considering the issue at length, the learned Single Judge held that the Pupil - Teacher Ratio (PTR) should be taken class wise and not school wise, as contended by the State. W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 3 : 5. The above finding of the learned Single Judge was impugned by the learned Advocate General, by relying on the provisions of the RTE Act. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in _Environmental and Consumer Protection Foundation v. Delhi Administration and others [2011 (13) SCC (1)]_ and a Division Bench judgment of the _Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.23306/12_ . These contentions are refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/ respondents. 6. We have considered the submissions made. The issue as to whether the Pupil - Teacher Ratio (PTR) is to be applied with the school as a unit as contended by the appellants or with the class as the unit as contended by the respondents is to be decided in the light of the provisions contained in the RTE Act itself. Section 19 of the RTE Act provides the norms and standards for W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 4 : the school. Sub Section (1) provides that no school shall be established, or recognised, under Section 18 of the Act, unless the school fulfills the norms and standards specified in the Schedule to the Act. Section 25 of the Act provides for Pupil - Teacher Ratio (PTR). As per Section 25(1), within three years from the date of commencement of the Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil - Teacher Ratio (PTR), as specified in the Schedule, is maintained in each school. The Schedule to the Act containing the Norms and Standards in a school, is extracted below for reference: ## THE SCHEDULE (See section 19 and 25) ## NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR A SCHOOL W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 5 : _Sl. Item Norms and standards No._ 1 Number of teachers: Admitted children Number of teachers (a) For first class Upto Sixty Two to fifth class Between sixty-one to ninety Three Between Ninety-one to one hundred and twenty Four Between One hundred and twenty-one to two hundred Five Above one hundred and fifty children Five plus one Head-teacher Above two hundred children Pupil-Teacher Ratio (excluding Head- teacher) shall not exceed forty (b) For sixth class to (1) At least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each foreighth class (i) Science and Mathematics; (ii) Social Studies; (iii) Languages. (2) at least one teacher for every thirty-five children. - (3) Where admission of children is above one hundred. - (i) a full time head-teacher; (ii) part time instructors for (A) Art Education; (B) Health and Physical Education; - (C) Work Education. 2. Building All - weather building consisting of - (i) at least one class-room for every teacher and an office-cum-store-cum-Head teacher's room; (ii) barrier-free access; (iii) separate toilets for boys and girls; (iv) safe and adequate drinking water facility to all children; (v) a kitchen where mid-day meal is cooked in the school; (vi) playground; (vii)arrangement for securing the school building by boundary wall or fencing. W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 6 : _Sl. Item Norms and standards No._ - 3 Minimum number of (i) two hundred working days for first class to fifth class; working days / (ii) two hundred and twenty working days for sixth class to eighth class; instructional hours in (iii) eight hundred instructional hours per academic year for first class to fifth class; an academic year (iv) One thousand instructional hours per academic year for sixth class to eighth class. - 4 Minimum number of working hours per Forty-five teaching including preparation hours week for the teacher - Teaching - 5 learning equipment Shall be provided to each class as required. - 6 Library There shall be a library in each school providing newspaper, magazines and books on all subjects, including story books. - 7 Play material, games Shall be provided to each class as required. and sports equipment 7. A perusal of the Schedule shows, as per clause 1(a) Norms and Standards have been prescribed “for first class to fifth W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 7 : class”. It is to be noticed that the Legislature has specifically prescribed the Norms and Standards “for first class to fifth class” and not “from first class to fifth class”. Secondly, this itself indicates that Legislature has adopted class as the unit for application and satisfaction of the Norms and Standards. Turning to the norms and standards prescribed for first class to fifth class, it can also be seen that in a class where the strength of admitted children is upto 60, the number of teachers required is to be 2. Similarly, when the strength is between 61 to 90, it is 3. Obviously, the norms prescribed is for admitted children in a class and not in a school, as contended by the learned Advocate General for the appellants. This is all the more clear from the further prescription Clause (b) where norms and standards have been prescribed “for sixth class to eighth class.” It is also evident from W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 8 : the further prescription in clause 2, where it is also provided that at least 1 class room shall be provided for every teacher. 8. There is a hidden danger in the argument of the State that the school should be adopted as the unit. If the total strength of the students from first class to fifth class is between 61 and 90, it will be possible for the Government to run the school with three teachers. According to us, that will run counter to object and purpose of the RTE Act, particularly in the light of the constitutional obligation undertaken by the State in discharge of which the Act was enacted. That apart, in such a situation, it would not be possible to satisfy the minimum number of working days/instructional hours prescribed by Clause 3 to the Schedule. 9. All these, therefore, indicate that the findings of the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal that class shall W.A.Nos.372/16 & Conn. Cases : 9 : be the unit for determining the Pupil - Teacher Ratio, is in accordance with law. 10. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the judgment under appeal. All the appeals are liable to be dismissed and we do so. SD/- **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** SD/- **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** _jes_