Aided schools have no right to continuation of previously sanctioned staffing levels.

Sarah Tucker Higher Secondary School for Girls and St. Peter’s Higher Secondary School challenged G.O.Ms.No.238 dated 13 November 2018 and consequential staff-fixation orders declaring specified teaching and non-teaching posts surplus for the 2018–2019 academic year.

In a connected petition, Agnus Priya challenged the declaration of a sweeper post as surplus and the consequential refusal to approve her appointment, seeking approval and service and monetary benefits from 5 November 2020.

The State informed the Court that a Division Bench had decided challenges to the same Government Order in W.A.(MD) No.816 of 2023 and batch on 23 June 2026.

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge the reduction of sanctioned teaching and non-teaching staff under G.O.Ms.No.238 and the consequential staff-fixation orders.

2. Whether Agnus Priya was entitled to approval of her appointment as sweeper and the consequential benefits despite the post being declared surplus.

3. Whether the petitions should be disposed of in accordance with the Division Bench’s decision concerning G.O.Ms.No.238.

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s interpretation of Section 19 of the applicable Act and Rule 15 of the Rules, which empower the Government to determine staff strength from time to time by reference to academic requirements, teacher-pupil ratios, financial considerations and other relevant factors.

The Division Bench had held that grant-in-aid is not a fundamental right and that institutions cannot insist on continuation of a prior staffing pattern as of right; the Government may determine staff strength through policy, including in light of technological developments and financial considerations.

It further held that appointments already made, with approval proposals pending, must be considered on their merits; any approval is co-terminus with the incumbent, and the post may not be refilled when it falls vacant.

The Court treated the Division Bench’s decision as governing the challenges to G.O.Ms.No.238 and applied its reasoning to the staff-fixation disputes before it.

Since the Division Bench had rejected the contention that institutions were entitled to retain their previous staffing levels, the petitioners’ challenges to the surplus declarations failed.

The Court did not separately determine the merits of Agnus Priya’s appointment claim; it dismissed the petitions in line with the Division Bench’s judgment while permitting the petitioners to make representations for any relief available to similarly placed institutions under that judgment.

It granted the petitioners liberty to make representations to the Department if they considered themselves entitled to relief granted to similarly placed institutions.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.