Antony Dominic, J. 1. The respondents in W.P(C).36136/07 are the appellants. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, whereby, the condition in Ext.P2 order to the effect that sanctioning of additional two Malayalam Divisions will be subject to the condition that there would not be any additional financial commitment to the appellants, is quashed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the first respondent was sanctioned an oriental school with Sanskrit as the medium of instruction. Based on a request made by him, by Ext.P2 order, they were permitted to open one Malayalam medium parallel division each in standards V and VIII during the academic year 2000-01, subject to the condition that there will be 50 students willing to study in the Malayalam medium parallel division and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXIII KER and subject to further condition that no additional financial commitment will be incurred to the Government in this regard. Though belatedly, representations were made objecting to the said condition and requesting for sanctioning of additional posts in the school which were rejected by the Government as per Ext.P7. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition came to be filed challenging mainly the condition in Ext.P2, exonerating the Government from the additional financial commitment. Considering the issue, learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition holding thus:
“Therefore, the condition in Ext.P2 to the effect that sanctioning of the additional two Malayalam divisions is subject to the condition that there would not be any additional financial commitment to the Government in respect of the additional divisions is quashed as without jurisdiction. Consequently, Exts.P7 and P9 are also quashed. The D.E.O. shall re-fix the staff strength in accordance with the students strength available for all the years from the year 2000-2001 onwards based on the student strength. However, I make it clear that the salary shall be paid in accordance with the staff strength so fixed only to those teachers, who had actually worked in the school for the period in question. The 3rd respondent shall pass orders in accordance with the above directions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. “ It is this judgment which under challenge before us.
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Although we heard the learned Government Pleader at length, his contentions to sustain the objected condition in Ext.P2 cannot be accepted. According to us, learned single Judge was fully justified in his conclusion that there is no provision in the Kerala Education Act or Rules absolving the Government of the financial commitments in relation to appointments in aided schools. In fact, section 9 of the Kerala Education Act makes this position clear.
5. However, it is the specific case of the appellants that the further conditions in Ext.P2 order were also not complied with by the respondents and that therefore, they cannot be made liable for payment of salary. In fact, it was considering this submission that orders were passed by this Court on 7.1.2011 directing the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam to conduct a surprise inspection of the school and make a report regarding the divisions and number of students studying in each devision of the school. Accordingly, inspection was conducted on 25.1.2011 and report dated 29.1.2011 has been filed before this Court. This report, prima facie, also shows that the appellants are justified in the contention regarding non-compliance of the other conditions of Ext.P2. However, objections have been filed to the report and in the objections, the respondent has disputed many of the findings therein. In such circumstances, having regard to the disputed questions of facts involved, we do not think it prudent on our part to make a final pronouncement of the findings in the report.
6. Be that as it may, the first respondent is bound by the other conditions of Ext.P2 order. Therefore, unless he complies with those conditions also, we do not want to make the Government liable for payment of salary, even if any teacher has worked in that school. Though we uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge, we further direct that the appellants will also verify and need revise the staff fixation always and pay salary to the teachers only if it is found that the first respondent has complied with the other conditions contained in Ext.P2 order dated 11.1.2000.
7. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.
Original of the files leading to Ext.P2 will be returned to the Government Pleader under acknowledgement.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
kkb.
/True copy/ PS to Judge