Denial of re-employment of petitioner held unjust and unreasonable.

The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 26. 2007 and quash the same in so far as denial of re-employment till the end of the academic year 2007-08 is concerned and direct the respondents to grant re-employment till the end of the academic year 2007-08 (i.e.) 35. 2008.

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant on 16. 1972 and after working in various capacity in various schools, he was transferred to the 3rd respondent-school by an order dated 6. 2005. Since he was attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2007, he has made a request on 26. 2007 to the Correspondent of the 3rd respondent-School to permit him to continue in job till the end of the academic year, (i.e.) 35. 2008. While so, on 30.6.2007, he was served with an order dated 27. 2007 stating that he shall retire from service on the afternoon of 30.6.2007. This led to the filing of an appeal dated 7. 2007 to the first respondent, but the same has not been considered so far. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition for the relief set out earlier.

.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 5 and the brief facts narrated thereon is as follows:-

.The petitioner did not seek for any re-employment and he did not evince any interest in getting re-employment. Though various G.Os. provide for re-employment of the school teachers who reach the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year till the end of the academic year, the same contain certain conditions and the petitioner does not fulfill the same and hence, he is not entitled for re-employment. The petitioners work and conduct during the period of service in the school is not satisfactory and that he is insubordinate to the Headmaster, Correspondent and other superiors of the school and on one occasion (i.e.) 111. 2006, a memo has been issued to the petitioner seeking explanation from him for his misconduct. Furthermore, as soon as he jointed in the present school on transfer on 6. 2005, he has applied for medical leave from 6. 2005 to 37. 2005 and he has not joined duty on 8. 2005, but he has extended his medical leave. He has been referred to the medical board and after examining him on 19. 2005, the petitioner has been directed to join duty immediately and he joined duty on 19. 2005. He has not given medical certificate for the period from 8. 2005 to 19. 2005 and hence, his subsequent increment and other service benefits could not finalised. Thus, the sum and substance of the counter affidavit of the respondents 3 and 5 is that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on the grounds that he has not requested for re-employment, that his work and conduct is not satisfactory, and that he has not sent the pension papers to the Accountant General one year before his date of retirement which are the prerequisite conditions prescribed in various G.Os. of the Government.

.4. Counter affidavit has not been filed by the other respondents. On these backdrop of the matter, Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 5 raised their respective contentions.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.Pa.Kadirvel, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first rspondent and Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 5.

6. The right of the teachers to continue in service till the end of the academic year in case of his date of retirement falls in the middle of the academic year cannot be disputed. The said right admittedly flows from various orders of the Government issued from time to him and last of such order flows from G.O.Ms.No.1643 d