S. Muthuvel vs The Director of Elementary Education, The District Elementary Educational Officer, The Assistant Elementary Officer and The Correspondent, E.V.A. Vallimuthu Primary School

P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to provide re-employment till the end of the academic

year upto 31.5.2007 in terms of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 1643, Education dated 27.10.1988.

By consent of either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and disposed of. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for respondents.

The petitioner was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school having joined service on 29.9.1980. He attained

superannuation on 30.6.2006. It was in the middle of academic year. By virtue of the G.O.Ms. No. 249, Education dated 9.2.1959, in respect of

teachers, who retired in the middle of academic year, they should be allowed for re-employment till the end of academic year and the said G.O.

came to be reiterated in G.O.Ms. No. 1643, Education dated 27.10.1988.

In the present case it is seen that the Secretary of 4th respondent himself has recommended for the re-employment of the petitioner after

30.6.2006 on the basis he has retired from service in the middle of the academic year.

In these circumstances, the petitioner relying upon the G.O.Ms. No. 1643 Education dated 27.10.1988 has filed the present writ petition for a

direction to the respondents that he is entitled for re-employment till the end of academic years namely 21.5.2007. It is seen from the said

G.O.Ms. No. 1643, Education dated 27.10.1988 that such a right of re-employment shall be conferred provided the pre-requisite conditions are

satisfied, namely the character and the conduct of the teachers should be satisfactory and they should be physically fit to continue in service.

It is not even the case of the 4th respondent school that the conduct and the character of the petitioner was not satisfactory or the petitioner was

not physically fit to continue his service. However the fact remains that it is the school committee of the 4th respondent being the management of

the school, which has to decide the re-employment based on the Government Orders.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while placing reliance on a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of S.

Sundaram v. The Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras and Ors. reported in ILR (1994) 3 Madras 936 wherein while construing the relevant

G.O., which confers the right of re-employment, the Division Bench has pointed out that such re-employment has to be given as a matter of course

or routine and a direction need not even be asked for by the concerned teacher, would contend that it is the duty of the institution to continue the

said teacher till the end of academic year, provided the conditions are satisfied.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of C. Harris Vs. The District

Elementary Educational Officer and The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, to support his contention that such a right of re-employment is a

matter of course, provided the conditions stipulated in the G.O. are satisfied.

There is absolutely no quarrel about the right of re-employment. The learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent Mr. C. Selvaraj, would

submit that it is true if conditions are satisfied the petitioner is entitled for re-employment. However the school committee of the 4th respondent by

over sight has not considered the issue of re-employment and therefore, the school committee of the 4th respondent will certainly consider the

same in the light of said Government order from the date on which the petitioner is entitled for re-employment in the said institution based on the

judgement which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the right of re-employment is a matter of course, however subject to the said conditions. In

any event as it is correctly contended by the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent that such re-employment has to be given by the school

committee of the 4th respondent. It is admittedly true that the school is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)Act.

In view of the above the 4th respondent is directed to issue order of re-employment to the petitioner on his satisfying all the requisite conditions

of G.O.Ms. No. 1643 dated 27.10.1988. Such order of re-employment shall be given to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2006 with all

monetary benefits subject to the above conditions. The said school committee shall pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2006 is closed.