What can be a possible healthy population to Govt. employee ratio?

In India, in my state of West Bengal, the sanctioned post by the state Govt. including primary and secondary school teachers, village level and municipality workers and direct govt. employees are just 1 million and at least 35% at present are vacant. While the population of the whole state is 110 million as per the latest census. Can the ratio be considered a healthy ratio? Moreover, keep it in mind that a very large section of population live in villages that have very poor infrastructure like roads and the literacy rate isn't high.
At present, a large part of general population here in India (basically small shop owners, peasants i.e. the petty-bourgeoisie section) are viewing organized sector workers and especially govt. employees as some kind of root of all evil and they firmly believe that the govt. is wasting too much money to pay the "highly paid" govt. workers and the number of employees are too many. That's why very little money is left for development works.
I want to know about population to govt. employee ratio of different countries to compare that with my own. Kindly help me by giving data if you have any.

The bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, professional and managerial classes are always going to be hostile to public sector workers since much of the revenue used to finance public services is derived from tax money they are required to pay. Part of the reason for this is because the state is prohibited from establishing nationalized industries that produce goods from which the profits can be used as a source of public revenue. Capitalism also inculcates a mentality wherein the bourgeoisie and coordinator class consider their wealth to be justly acquired—as opposed to the reality that all wealth is expropriated from the proletariat and allocated by the capitalist class—and thus any attempt to tax their income is ironically viewed as a form of theft. Very few of them appreciate how dependent their businesses are on the use of public services and common resources which their communities provide—and which are financed through state and local taxes, and therefore disproportionately subsidized by working people. (I'm obviously referring to the American public sector, as I'm not aware of the manner by which it functions in India.)

With respect to what a "healthy" population to government ratio might be, that's difficult to determine. In my opinion, the public services which are democratically demanded by the population should be provided for. However, those services are often not politically viable in capitalist countries due to the fact the state serves at the behest of the bourgeoisie. If recent events have demonstrated anything, it's that the welfare state was a historic anomaly and fundamentally incompatible with the capitalist mode of production. (See this post for a more thorough explanation of why that is.)

Fortunately, there are alternatives. Socialist market, centrally planned, and participatory socialist economies are all capable of providing the social services required for a humane existence because they are immune from bourgeois manipulation of the political establishment (since a capitalist class is not retained in those models) and function according to mechanisms radically different from those which capitalism is based on.

I do not anticipate that this will present itself as a problem in a post-capitalist society. The "ratio" is quite arbitrary because the dichotomy between state and private employees is only relevant in an economy functioning on the basis of private capital accumulation. State employees provide (often vital) services (although goods are quite possible) and are no less instrumental to economic welfare, and they are wholly capable of producing surplus value. As Celtiberian has already explained, state employment is presently disparaged and demonized due to the fact that most capitalists do not care to offer public concessions to the proletariat. Public welfare programs invariably cut into their hoards of private capital, which they ideologically believe to be righteously acquired. The welfare state is simply unsustainable under capitalism, but not under socialism.