Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 1880
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
B. Selvaraj & Another - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.20273 of 2006 and M.P.Nos 1, 2 Writ Petition No.20274 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1, 2
Decided On : 28 July 2006
The central legal point established is that under G.O.Ms.No.452, Education Department, teachers are entitled to re-employment only if their character and conduct are satisfactory.
Headnote:
Re-employment - Character and Conduct - G.O.Ms.No.452, Education Department, dated 24.3.1970
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought re-employment as teachers till the end of the academic year after attaining superannuation. The management refused re-employment citing unsatisfactory character and conduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the character and conduct of the petitioners were unsatisfactory, leading to the denial of re-employment. The court referred to a similar case where re-employment was denied due to unsatisfactory conduct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the denial of re-employment to the petitioners by the management was proper or not.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per G.O.Ms.No.452, Education Department, teachers are entitled to re-employment only if their character and conduct are satisfactory. Since the petitioners' character and conduct were found unsatisfactory, the denial of re-employment was justified.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the denial of re-employment to the petitioners.
(Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to extend the service of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher, till the end of the academic year 2006-2007 i.e., 31.5.2007.)
In W.P.No.20273 of 2006, petitioner seeks to direct the third respondent to extend the service of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher till the end of the academic year 2006-2007 i.e. 31.5.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2006 and on 1.6.2006 and on 9.6.2006 he submitted representations before the third respondent along with medical certificate to extend his service on re-employment basis till the end of the academic year, i.e., 31.5.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his request, he was not given re-employment from 1.7.2006 as per the Government Orders and hence filed the writ petition.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get re-employment as his character and conduct are not satisfactory. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated as under,
"6. .... The school received lot of complaints from the students that the petitioner illegally collected money from the 8th standard students for various reasons for which the petitioner has no authority. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has accepted the collection of money and as per the direction of the 3rd respondent he returned the money to the students concerned and in writing he admitted the said illegal collection of money. Hence the 3rd respondent school after conduct of an enquiry passed an order suspending the petitioner for a period of eight days as a punishment. It is not to correct to say that the said period was regularised. Pending approval of the Educational authorities only salary was paid for the said period. Moreover the petitioner's attitude towards other teachers was also not satisfactory. From these incidents it is clear that the conduct and character of the above said teacher was not good and satisfactory and he is not entitled for re-employment till the end of the academic year. The petitioner has also not fulfilled the 3rd pre-requisite condition as stated above. Hence the 3rd respondent has not chosen to allow the petitioner to continue till the end of academic year and passed the relieving order on 30.6.2006. When the said order was sought to be served on the petitioner on 30.6.2006 he refused to receive the same and hence the said order was sent by RPAD to him on the next working day i.e., 03.07.2006. It is also worthwhile to mention herein that one Selvi M.Barathi was appointed as teacher through P.T.A. in the place of the petitioner by an order dated 01.07.2006."
4. In W.P.No.20274 of 2006 petitioner seeks similar direction to the third respondent therein to extend his service as Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) till the end of the academic year 2006-2007 i.e., 31.5.2007.
5. The brief facts of that case is that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 17.6.2006 and on 1.6.2006 made representation to the third respondent along with medical certificate to extend his service on re-employment basis till the end of the academic year 2006-2007 i.e., 31.5.2007. As the petitioner has not been provided with re-employment in spite of his representation dated 1.6.2006 as per the Government Orders, he has filed the writ petition.
6. In the Counter affidavit filed by the third respondent in that case also it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get re-employment since his character and conduct are not satisfactory. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under,
"6.... During the general verification of the community, nativity and degree certificates of the teachers working in the school, the petitioner, who belongs to forward community (Saiva Vellalar)
