IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.01.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.23339 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 S.Kannan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Vallal S.I. Alagarswamy Chettiar Hr.Sec.School, No.2 and 3, Adam Sahib Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, South Chennai, Chennai District. 3.The Joint Director/Higher Secondary, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 4.R.Radha Bai ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear the fourth respondent from continuing as Headmistress in the first respondent school from 01.11.2009 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009. (Prayer amended as per order dated 03.12.09 by VDPJ in M.P.No.2/09 in W.P.No.23339/09) For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Ms.E.Renganayaki,G.A. For R2 and R3 O R D E R The petitioner is a Senior Post Graduate Assistant working in the first respondent school. The first respondent school is an aided private school covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The petitioner was aspiring https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to become the Headmaster of the said school and was waiting for the fourth respondent to retire from service. According to the petitioner, the date of birth of the fourth respondent was 04.10.1951. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, she should retire from the post of Head Mistress on 31.10.2009. 2. Anticipating the vacancy, the first respondent school had called for aspiring candidates for being considered for the said post. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.21796 of 2009, challenging the interview letter dated 19.10.2009 calling the petitioner to appear for written and oral interview on 26.10.2009. This Court by an order dated 26.10.2009 granted interim injunction for a period of two weeks. It is now claimed that the said order came to be extended subsequently also. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner has now come forward to file the second writ petition seeking for a declaration that the continuation of the fourth respondent as Head Mistress from 01.11.2009 in the first respondent school is illegal. Subsequently, the petitioner took out an application in M.P.No.2 of 2009 for amending the prayer which was also allowed on 03.12.2009. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to forbear the fourth respondent from continuing as Head Mistress in the first respondent school from 01.11.2009 after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009. 4. Notice was taken by the learned Government Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. 5. The grievance of the petitioner was that the fourth respondent is continuing in service beyond superannuation. However, Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that as per the Government order in existence, a Teacher or a Headmaster is entitled to continue in service till the end of the academic year if the date of superannuation falls during the middle of the academic year. This continuance is subject to two restrictions viz., a candidate must be physically fit for the said continuance and the character and conduct should be satisfactory. 6. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the fourth respondent suffers from any such disqualification. Even otherwise, on the admission of the petitioner himself that the fourth respondent continues as a Headmistress beyond 01.11.2009 only shows that the same can be done only with the approval of the first respondent and subject to the grant being released by respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, when the fourth respondent is entitled to avail the service benefits given by the State Government for continuing in service till the end of the academic year and there is nothing stated which can disqualify her from holding the said post, the present writ petition seeking to forbear her from continuing in service is misconceived. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. This Court in more than one cases has held that the benefit of extension of service till the end of the academic year is actually not an additional advantage to a teacher but only with a view to maintain the academic continuity in a school so that the students' academic work is not disturbed in the middle of the academic year. When such is the case and the first respondent has not passed any order to deny the said benefits to the fourth respondent, the petitioner cannot seek to dislodge the fourth respondent by filing such a writ petition. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's only anxiety is that he is at the verge of his retirement and before his retirement, he wants to get in to the said post. That issue is covered by other writ petition and therefore, this Court is not inclined to comment on his eligibility to get such promotion. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and bereft of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. svki To 1.The Correspondent-cum-Secretary, Vallal S.I. Alagarswamy Chettiar Hr.Sec.School, No.2 and 3, Adam Sahib Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, South Chennai, Chennai District. 3.The Joint Director/Higher Secondary, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. 1 CC To Government Pleader, SR.No.512 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 CC To Mr.C.Johnson, Advocate, SR.No.617 W.P.No.23339 of 2009 MSM (CO) SS (19.01.2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/