Re-employment is not automatic and is subject to satisfactory work, physical fitness, and absence of disciplinary proceedings. The teacher's conduct and interest in the welfare of the institution and students are crucial in determining re-employment.

1. The writ petitioner, who was a teacher in the first respondent school, has come forward with the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12.8.97 made in Mo.Mu. No.89965/D4/97 dated 12.8.97 and directed the respondents to re-employ the petitioner from 1.7.97 till the end of the academic year.

2. Heard Mr.Dhanabalan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.Fenn Walter, for the petitioner, Mr.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Ms.V.Velumani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. The contention advanced in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner, who was employed in the first respondent school, has to demit office on 30.6.97 on his completing 58 years. The petitioner approached the respondent with a request that he be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year. The petitioner's request was considered by the respondents. The first respondent rejected. So also the 3rd respondent, after calling for the reports and remarks of the first respondent. The respondents declined to re-employ the petitioner till the end of the academic year as his service and conduct were not satisfactory and it is not in the interest of the schools as well. The first respondent management took the stand that it is not in the interest of the institution or school children to permit the petitioner to continue or to reappoint the petitioner till the end of the academic year. The school committee has also passed a resolution declining to accept the request of the petitioner for re-employment till the end of the academic year. Accepting the objections raised by the school committee of the first respondent school, the 3rd respondent passed the orders impugned.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the first respondent has acted vindictively and with malice, in that as a matter of right the petitioner is entitled for reappointment till the end of the academic year.

5. Per contra, Mr.Joseph Thatheus Jerome, learned counsel for the first respondent school contended that the petitioner is not entitled for re-employment as a matter of right and that the petitioner's conduct, his behaviour and his handling the classes and his earlier conduct also will disentitle him. The learned counsel for the first respondent refers to various earlier proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner and sought to justify the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. The learned Additional Government Pleader contended that the petitioner has neither a fundamental right nor a right to compel the respondents to re-employ him till the end of the academic year and if the petitioner satisfy the requirements, then the discretion has to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the Government Orders, it is rightly pointed out that the conduct of the petitioner, his service and his attitude were taken into consideration and the respondents have rightly declined to re-employ the petitioner.

6. The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition is :-

"i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for re-employment automatically till the end of the academic year and as a matter of routine ?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for re-employment on the facts of the case ?

iii) To what relief, if any ?"

All the above points could be considered together.

7. The first respondent is a private school. The employment in the first respondent school is governed by the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner has got a right to continue in service till he completes 58 years.

8. The petitioner has no right to compel the respondents to re-appoint him or for re-emp