JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue in service as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th Respondent School till the end of the academic year 2017-18, as re-employment.)

This Petition was filed to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue in service as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th Respondent School till the end of the academic year 2017-18, as re-employment.

2. In this Writ Petition an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 30.06.2017. By that time an order dated 28.06.2017 had been passed by the 3rd Respondent and communicated to the 4th Respondent/School, where the Petitioner was employed. By the said communication, the Respondents herein confirmed the 4th Respondent that there is no scope for continuing the Petitioner after 30.06.2017, being the date of superannuation. Therefore, W.M.P.No.5197 of 2020 has been filed to amend the prayer to read as follows:

Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Na.Ka.No.1047/A5/2017 dated 28.06.2017 and quash the same and directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue in service as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th Respondent School till the end of the academic year 2017-18, as re-employment ”

instead of

Mandamus, directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue in service as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th Respondent School till the end of the academic year 2017-18, as re-employment.”

3. The Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that 30.06.2017 would come after the commencement of the academic year. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Government has issued orders in the past for allowing such teachers to continue in the school till the end of the academic year.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Mangaiarasi.B vs District Collector Shivganga, reported in 1998 WLR 77, wherein, this Court taking note of G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education (u2) dated 27.10.1988, took a view that there cannot be any valid reasons to refuse redeployment to continue, the Petitioners therein, especially when the District Elementary Education Officer himself has recommended for such redeployment of the Petitioner therein till the end of the year.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also referred an order passed in W.P.Nos.14934 and 14935 of 2010 dated 18.01.2011 wherein under the similar circumstances the relief was granted to the Petitioner therein. Para 8 of the said order reads as under:

“8. Inasmuch as the right of the reemployment is almost a matter of statutory right, I do not think that the reason adduced by the third respondent in the impugned order as also in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not rendered minimum required service for earning pension and therefore he should be denied the said right is valid.”

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance on the order passed on 19.09.2019 in W.P.No.26689 and batch of 2019, wherein under similar circumstances, the Court has granted relief based on several decisions of this Court. Reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.261 dated 20.12.2018, particularly clause 7(iii) which reads as under:

10. This Court perused the GOMs. 261 dated 20.12.2018. As per clause 7(iii), Which reads as follows:

11. The said GO makes it clear that even the teachers can be re-employed in the said school for the welfare of the students and when similar issues came up for consideration before this Court, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

11. Contending that right of re-employment is not automatic, learned counsel for Appellant placed reliance upon the judgment in W.A.(MD) No.160 of 2009 (dated 31.01.2011). In the said judgment, referring to the