W.P(MD)No.736 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 17.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

W.P(MD)No.736 of 2020

and

W.M.P(MD)Nos.542 to 544 of 2021

G.R.Nirmala Jasmine

... Petitioner

Vs

1.The Director of School Education,

DPI Complex,

College Road,

Chennai – 600 002.

2.The Chief Education Officer,

Kanyakumari District,

Nagercoil.

3.The District Education Officer,

Thucklay,

Kanyakumari District.

4.The Correspondent,

Christucoil LMS Higher Secondary School,

Palliyadi – 629 169,

Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records pertaining to the orders passed by the third respondent

dated 20.11.2019, quash the same and consequently direct the third

and fourth respondents to re-employ the petitioner from 01.02.2020

to 31.05.2020.

For Petitioner

: Mr.H.Elango

For Respondents

: Mr.P.T.Thiraviam,

1 to 3

Government Advocate

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P(MD)No.736 of 2020

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order

dated 20.11.2019, wherein the petitioner's request for re-employment

till the end of the academic year has been rejected.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was appointed as P.G.Assistant [Tamil] on 03.08.2006 in

the fourth respondent school. While so, the petitioner's

superannuation fell on 31.01.2020. Therefore the petitioner

submitted application seeking extension of her services till the end

of the academic year, i.e., 31.05.2020. However, her request was

rejected by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 20.11.2019.

Therefore, challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court.

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

submitted that the petitioner was due to retire on 31.01.2020 and

her request for extension of service till 31.05.2020 was rejected by

the third respondent vide his proceedings dated 20.11.2019. He

further submits that the request of the petitioner has been rejected

in view of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.261 School Education

(pa.Ka.5(2) Department dated 20.12.2018 that whenever there is

surplus teacher available in the district, there should not be any

extension of service beyond the date of superannuation. He has also

placed reliance on the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in W.P.(MD)No.13421 of 2016 dated 18.01.2018.

4.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the

materials placed on record.

5.It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as P.G.Assistant

and her date of superannuation is 31.01.2020. A perusal of the

impugned proceedings shows that there was surplus Tamil Teacher as

on date. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.261 School Education

(pa.Ka.5(2) Department dated 20.12.2018 states that there cannot be

any extension of service, where there are surplus teachers

available.

6.A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13421 of 2016

dated 18.01.2018 held that the purpose of granting re-employment to

the teachers, who retire in the middle of the academic year is to

benefit the students and though certain Government Orders issued in

this connection, the same cannot perversely applied and when there

is surplus teacher, the question of extension of service does not

arise at all.

7.It is clear that when there is surplus teacher available in a

particular school, extension of service cannot be granted in view of

G.O.Ms.No.261 School Education (pa.Ka.5(2) Department dated

20.12.2018 and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division

2/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P(MD)No.736 of 2020

Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13421 of 2016 dated 18.01.2018. As

such there is no reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings

of the third responden