K.C. Govindan vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

M. Jaichandren, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

relating to the order of the fourth respondent issued in Roc.(M3)/40061/05, dated 31.07.2005, and to quash the same and consequently direct the

respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Headmaster cum Warden of GTR Middle School, Varam, Kalrayan Hills,

Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on

04.11.1970 at the Government Elementary School. After serving in such capacity at various Government Elementary Schools, he was promoted

as a Headmaster and posted at Adi Dravidar Welfare School, Rangamangalam, Cuddalore Taluk on 01.06.1988. Later, he was transferred and

posted as Headmaster and Warden, Government Tribal Elementary School, Varam, Kalrayan Hills at Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

Further, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2005. Before attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner had

worked for more than 34 years. The petitioner has an unblemished record of service and had discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the

authorities concerned. The petitioner is also physically and mentally fit to continue in service, atleast till the end of the academic year. Before his

retirement, the petitioner had made a representation through his letter, dated 01.06.2005 seeking re-employment till the end of the academic year.

ie.03.05.2006. The said letter was addressed to the fourth respondent and the petitioner had also sent a further reminder on 11.07.2005.

The petitioner further states that in respect of re-employment, the first respondent, government had passed G.O.Ms. No. 249, dated

09.02.1959 and G.O.Ms. No. 1712, dated 5.8.1976, making it clear that the teacher who had reached the age of superannuation during the

middle of the academic year should be allowed to continue in service on re-employment terms till the date of closure of the school for the summer

vacation, provided their work and conduct are satisfactory and they are physically fit to continue in the service .

It is further stated that the petitioner has obtained a medical certificate from the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Family

Welfare, Villupuram, on 09.06.2005, certifying that the petitioner is reasonably healthy and as such possesses the physical capacity and mental

alertness to continue discharging his duties satisfactorily even after attaining the age of 58 years. Moreover, the Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar

and Tribal Welfare through his proceedings Na.Ka. No. A/858/05, dated 29.06.2005, had recommended for the extension of petitioner''s service

till the end of the academic year. While so, the fourth respondent had passed an order in Roc(M3)/40061/2005, dated 31.07.2005, without

considering the petitioner''s representation seeking for re-employment. By the said order of the fourth respondent, dated 31.07.2005, the petitioner

was permitted to retire from government service on the after noon of 31.07.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation after deducting a sum of

Rs.2,51,627/- for the excess claim made by him. The petitioner further states that even though the fourth respondent has made the order for

deducting the said sum, the first respondent government has passed G.O.Ms. No. 160, dated 23.08.2005, protecting the said payment.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, dated 6.9.1994, in Writ

Appeal No. 1179 of 1993 (batch) in the case of S.Sundaram Vs The Secretary, C.S.I Diocese of Madras, Chennai and others wherein, it has

been held as follows :

We have already re-produced the relevant Govt. Orders. Those Govt. Orders are to be read as a whole. An analysis of the aforesaid

Govt.Orders would disclose that re-employment is for ensuring continuity of benefits to teaching from the same teachers to the students during the

academic year, that it is a re-employment and not continuity of service of fulfilling the conditions that the work and conduct are satisfactory, that

they are physically found fit for further service and that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. Thus it is clear that neither a fresh

teacher nor a teacher who is not fit to be continued, is imposed upon the institution. It is the very same teacher whose work and conduct are found

to be satisfactory and who is physically found to be fit for further service and against whom no disciplinary proceedings is pending, is directed to be

continued on re-employment basis during the remaining period of that academic year. Further Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private

Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, makes it incumbent upon the management which receives aid from the State Govt. to abide by the orders that are

issued from time to time by the State Govt. of course, subject to them being in conformity with the right guaranteed on the minority institutions

under Article 30 of the Constitution.

6.1. In the case of C. Harris Vs. The District Elementary Educational Officer and The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, , a learned judge

of this Court, quoting various decisions has held that the right of a teacher to continue in service till the end of the academic year in case of his/her

date of retirement falling in the middle of the academic year is well settled. In such a case, the teacher ought to be permitted to continue till the end

of the academic year unless, found to be disqualified otherwise.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner on attainment of the age of superannuation was permitted to

retire from Government service on the afternoon on 31.07.2005, under F.R.56(1) with a condition to deduct a sum of Rs.2,51,627/- for the

excess claim by him pending to the Government, in one lump sum from his D.C.R.G. He further contends that, in any case, the amount due from

the petitioner is liable to be recovered from the petitioner.

On a perusal of the documents placed before this Court and on hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the

respondents and placing reliance on the decided cases cited during the course of the hearing, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned

order passed by the fourth respondent issued in Roc.(M3)/40061/05, dated 31.07.2005, is liable to be quashed in so far as it permits the

petitioner to retire from service from 31.07.2005, and the petitioner ought to be re-employed in service as Headmaster cum Warden of GTR

Middle School, Varam, Kalrayan Hills, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District, till the end of the academic year 2005-2006 as contemplated in

G.O.Ms. No. 249, dated 09.02.1959, and G.O.Ms. No. 1712, dated 05.08.1976, with all attendant monetary and other benefits. To the extent

mentioned above, the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent Roc.(M3)/40061/05, dated 31.07.2005, is set aside. Therefore, the writ

petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed. No costs.