WA 232/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr UK Nair, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr MK Choudhury , learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Ms D Borgohain, learned c ounsel for respondent No.6. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 24-6-2010 passed by a learned Sin gle Judge in WP(C) No.1494/2010. The appellants are State Awardees in their profession as teachers. The official respondents issued an order dated 31-12-2009 in which it was noted that a proposal has been approved for re-employment of State Awardee teachers as Subject Teacher/ Teacher/Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, for a period of one year from the actual date of their superannuation subject to their willingn ess to continue in service and also subject to their physical fitness as well as mental alertness. On the basis of this order, the appellants were granted an extension of service for one year being State Awardees. On 5-2-2010 the order dated 31-12-2009 was modified by issuing a clarification t o the effect that the benefit of re-employment would be extended to the State Aw ardees to the substantive post held by them at the time of their retirement inst ead of the post as Subject Teacher/Teacher/Assistant Teacher. The private respondent, who aspired to be the Headmaster of the school in which he was teaching, challenged the order dated 5-2-2010. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit in which it was frankly admit ted that there was no statutory basis for granting an extension of service beyo nd the age of superannuation. Notwithstanding this, administratively an order of extension appears to have been issued. Taking all these facts into consideration the learned Single Judge was of the vi ew that it would not be appropriate to deprive the private respondent/writ petit ioner of his aspiration to be the Headmaster of the school in which he was alrea dy working. It was also held that an extension in service after superannuation c an be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances and no rule as contem plated by the order dated 31-12-2009 could be issued. The learned Single Judge w as also of the view that there was no legal error in requiring the appellants to continue to function as Subject Teacher/Teacher/Assistant Teacher as postulated by the order dated 31-12-2009. The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are now before us. It is submitted on their be half by learned counsel that it would be humiliating for the appellants to go ba ck to the post of Subject Teacher/Teacher/Assistant Teacher after they had super annuated as Headmasters of the concerned schools. We find that there is no obligation on the appellants to accept the extension of one year beyond the age of superannuation. If the appellants feel that it would not be advisable to them to continue as Subject Teacher/ Teacher/Assistant Teac her they are not obliged to continue to teach in the schools. We are also of the view that the aspirations of the private respondent/writ peti tioner must be taken into consideration when he has a legitimate expectation tha t he will one day become the Headmaster of the school particularly on the supera nnuation of the appellants. When this aspiration was in fact due to be achieved by the private respondent, it was suddenly interdicted by the order dated 5-2-20 10 read in conjunction with the order dated 31-12-2009. This completely mired th e legitimate aspiration and expectation of the private respondent, which we do n ot think is permissible in law in view of the fact that there is no statutory ba sis on which the appellants were granted an extension of service. It may be noted that the appellants have been given a State Award in their capac ity as Teachers and not as Headmasters and by virtue of their teaching skills. I t was, therefore, in the interest of the students that the appellants be given a n extension by order dated 31-12-2010. To say, that the appellants should conti nue as Head masters does not necessarily enhance the status of the appellants, w ho have been given the State Award because of their teaching abilities. We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.