V.G. Sneha v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 41875 OF 2017`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` V.G.SNEHA AGED 35 YEARS W/O T.G.MINESH, AGED 35 YEARS,HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER (JUNIOR)(HINDI) M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, UPPOODU P.O. EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001 2THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 3THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTORATE, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 034 4THE MANAGER M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, UPPOODU P.O. EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DIST- 691 502 ``` W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 2 ``` 5THE PRINCIPAL M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, UPPOODU P.O., EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DIST- 691 502 ``` ``` SMT ANIMA M, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 20.10.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 order to the extent that the respondents have refused to sanction the post of HSST Hindi for the academic year 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14. She has also sought a declaration that the school is entitled to get the post of HSST(Hindi) for the above academic years. 2. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner commenced her service on 12.02.2008 and has been working as HSST Jr. (Hindi) in the 4th respondent school. According to the petitioner, the student's strength in the academic year 2010-11 warrants the upgradation of HSST Jr. (Hindi) as HSST. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2917/2015, the Director has issued Ext.P6 order wherein it was found that the post of HSST Jr. (Hindi) is liable to be upgraded as a Full-Time post from the academic year 2010-11. In terms of the directions issued by the Director, the matter was considered by the Government and Ext.P10 order has been issued. The Government, after noticing the fact W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 4 that more than 120 students were available for sanctioning the 3rd batch, took the view that the post is not required to be sanctioned in view of the fact that there was only one student over and above 120. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: - (i) Call for the records relating to Ext.P4 and set aside the original of the same to the extent it did not sanction the post of HSST (Hindi) for the academic year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. - (ii) Declare that the 4th respondent school is entitled to get the post of HSST (Hindi) for the year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. - (iii) Call for the records relating to Ext.P10 and set aside the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ order or direction. - (iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to upgrade the post of HSST (Jr.) (Hindi) as HSST in which the petitioner has been working. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that the request made by the petitioner was considered, and it was found that there is only one student in excess of 120, which is the required strength for two batches. It is further stated that having found that the upgradation of HSST Jr. (Hindi) post as HSST W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 5 merely on the strength of one student was not prudent, the request made by the petitioner was rejected. 4. I have heard Sri.Rajasekharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. According to the learned counsel, as is evident from the report submitted by the Director, the students’ strength warrants upgradation of HSST Jr (Hindi) as HSST and consequently the promotion of the petitioner. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, having accepted the availability of the post, there was no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in issuing Ext.P10 order. 6. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the contentions in the counter and it is submitted that, for one excess student, post cannot be upgraded. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 8. G.O(RT) No.1341/98/G.Edn dated 28.03.1998 sanctioned one additional division to classes, over 50 students with a margin of 10 students in all the higher secondary schools. Hence if the student W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 6 strength exceeds 60, then there should be an additional batch sanctioned with the basic student strength for each batch maintained at 50. This would have to be determined based on the student's strength at each point when it exceeds 50. Every additional 61 students would result in two additional batches, one for 50 and the other for 11. 9. Circular No. Ad.B1.7224/006/HSC dated 30.05.2000 prescribed the maximum strength of one batch to be 50 and the maximum number of periods to be taught by a full-time HSST would be 25. The distribution for various subjects are also available in the circular, which speaks of six periods for Part II languages. 10. G.O(MS) 398/2002/G.Edn. dated 29.11.2003 provides for the appointment of a HSST Junior on the excess period in a week exceeding by 3. Hence for every period beyond 28, there shall be an additional HSST Junior appointed for the language subjects. 11. In **Manju S Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors** [2016 (2) KLT SN 69 (C.No80); 2016 ICO 148] identical issue had come up for consideration and a learned Single Judge went on to hold that the permissible student strength in a batch is not 60 and is 50. An additional batch could be granted only on the student strength exceeding 60. Para 7 and 9 of the judgment is extracted below for convenience: W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 7 7. G.O (RT) No.1341/98/G.Edn dated 28.03.1998 sanctioned one additional division to classes, over 50 students with a margin of 10 students in all the higher secondary schools. Hence if the student strength exceeds beyond 60, then, there should be an additional batch sanctioned with the basic student strength for each batch maintained at 50. This would have to be determined on the basis of the student strength at each point when it exceeds 50. Every additional 61 students would result in two additional batches, one for the 50 and the other for 11. 9. Inclass XI, there are 124 batches and Class XII 96 batches as per Ext. R4(a). Hence when a batch is taken as comprising of student strength of 50, there shall be 3 batches for Class XI: two comprising of 50 each and the 3rd comprising of 24. In class XII there shall be two batches: one comprising of 50 students and the other comprising of 40 students. In the five available batches there shall be six periods for every week which brings the total Hindi periods to 30 for a single week. The maximum periods a single teacher can take is 25 as noticed above and any period in excess of three would require the sanction of an additional post of HSST junior. Here there are five additional periods. 12. The Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.454 of 2017 and connected matters upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge of this Court. Relevant portion of Para 6 of the judgment is extracted below. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Government Pleader but we find ourselves unable to accept the interpretation suggested of the Government order dated 28-03-1998. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned in W.A No.454/2017, the Government order dated 28-03-1998 sanctioned one additional division to classes over 50 students with the margin of 10 students in all the Higher Secondary Schools. It followed therefore if the students' strength exceeded 60 then there should be an additional batch sanctioned with the maximum students in each batch maintained at 50. This would have to be determined on the basis of the student strength at each point when it exceeded 50, with every 61 students resulting in two additional batches, one for the 50 and the other for 11. We also find that the interpretation given to the circular dated W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 8 30-05-2000, that prescribed the maximum strength of one batch to be 50 and the maximum number of periods to be taught by a full time HSST as 25 also does not require any interference. The distribution for various subjects mentioned in the said circular clearly showed that there were 6 hours/periods required to be taken for part-II languages. When the Government order dated 29-11-2002 provided for the appointment of an HSST (Junior) on the excess period in a week exceeding 3, for every period beyond 28 there had to be an additional HSST (Junior) appointed for the language subjects. 13. In the present case, the students’ strength is 121. Going by the Government Order dated 28.3.1998, when the student strength exceeds beyond 60, then there should be an additional batch sanctioned with the basic student strength for each batch maintained at 50. This would have to be determined on the basis of the student strength at each point when it exceeds 50. Every additional 61 students would result in two additional batches, one for the 50 and the other for 11. As per the Circular dated 30.5.2000, the maximum strength of one batch is 50 and the maximum number of periods taught by a full-time HSST would be 25. The reason stated by the respondent that there is only a marginal increase of one student over 120 and hence, the post cannot be granted cannot be sustained under law. 14. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 9 Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions: Ext.P4 to the extent that the respondents have declined to sanction the post of HSST (Hindi) for the academic year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 will stand quashed. Consequently, Ext.P10 will also stand quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to upgrade the post of HSST (Jr.) Hindi as HSST (Hindi) from the academic year 2010-2011 and the respondents shall disburse the consequential benefits due to the petitioner by accommodating her in the above post. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** IAP W.P. (C) No.41875 of 2017 10 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41875/2017`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: ``` - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TRO/5/2859/07/HSE DATED 31-3-2008 OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF STUDENTS' STRENGTH PREPARED BY THE PRINCIPAL DATED 23-3-2014` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15778/2013-V DATED 10-06-2014` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TRO.05/2859/2009/HSE DATED 21-8-2014 OF THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 31-12-2014` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACD. C3/8558/15/HSE DATED 27-04-2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACDC3/8558/15/HSE(1) DATED 27-04-2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.22273/2015` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR DATED 10-04-2015 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)` - `EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.4498/2017/G.EDN. DATED 22-11-2017 OF THE GOVERNMENT`