Teacher appointment against a sanctioned vacancy must be assessed using current, not historical, pupil-teacher ratios.

CNI Girls Primary School, a recognised Christian minority institution, had six sanctioned teaching posts, which became vacant upon retirement of approved teachers. The school conducted a recruitment process under the special rules applicable to Christian minority institutions and appointed six assistant teachers, including Ms. Rina Mondal, against the vacancies.

The District Inspector of Schools approved the appointments of five teachers but withheld approval of Ms. Mondal’s appointment, which was made against the post previously held by Smt. Karuna Tudu.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Commissioner of School Education to consider the school’s representation regarding approval of Ms. Mondal’s appointment.

By order dated 18 September 2024, the Commissioner rejected the claim on the grounds that the post was not shown to be a sanctioned post, Smt. Tudu’s appointment and salary from the Government exchequer were not established, the vacancy pre-dated the school’s conferment of minority status, and the pupil-teacher ratio in 2020–2021 was below the prescribed 40:1 ratio.

The school challenged that order, relying on records showing approval of Smt. Tudu’s appointment, her service benefits, and the approval of other teachers appointed against earlier retirement vacancies.

It also contended that the school’s current student strength required the appointment under the Schedule to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

1. Whether the post previously held by Smt. Karuna Tudu constituted a sanctioned vacant post against which Ms. Rina Mondal could validly be appointed and her appointment approved?

2. Whether the fact that Smt. Tudu retired before the school was conferred Christian minority status disentitled the school from filling the resulting vacancy?

3. Whether the Commissioner was justified in refusing approval by applying the pupil-teacher ratio prevailing in 2020–2021 rather than the student strength existing when the approval was considered?

The Court applied paragraph 3 of Notification No. 198-SE/EE/10R-1/2015 dated 3 March 2016, which permits appointments against regular sanctioned vacant posts carrying Government-recognised salary and restricts appointments where the pupil-teacher ratio is below 40:1.

It further applied Clause 1(a) of the Schedule to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, under which a primary school having more than 200 children in Classes I–V must maintain a pupil-teacher ratio of 40:1, excluding the head teacher.

The Court also relied on the administrative records evidencing approval, service continuity, and service benefits of the previous incumbent as proof that the post was a sanctioned post.

The Court treated the school’s minority status as not altering its pre-existing sanctioned teaching structure or nullifying an earlier sanctioned post.

The Court held that the Commissioner’s finding that Smt. Tudu was not an approved or Government-paid teacher was perverse because the record contained her approval order, service documents, ROPA option, leave-sanctioning records, monthly returns, and other materials maintained or possessed by the education authorities.

Her approved appointment and continued service benefits demonstrated that she occupied a permanent sanctioned post; consequently, the vacancy created by her retirement could lawfully be filled by Ms. Mondal.

The Court further rejected the argument that the vacancy became unusable because Smt. Tudu had retired before the school acquired minority status, observing that conferment of minority status did not automatically alter the school’s sanctioned structure or invalidate its existing posts.

On the pupil-teacher ratio, the Court found it inappropriate to rely exclusively on student strength from 2020 and 2021 when the matter was decided in 2024. Since the school’s then-existing student strength was substantially higher and exceeded the statutory threshold, the appointment was consistent with the 40:1 norm.

The approval granted to the other five teachers appointed through the same process, including an appointment against an earlier retirement vacancy, further supported the school’s case and exposed the differential refusal as arbitrary.

It directed the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, Kolkata, to approve Ms. Rina Mondal’s appointment as a teacher of the school.

It directed the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, Kolkata, to undertake appropriate pay fixation, and release any arrear salary payable to her.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within eight weeks from communication of the judgment.