1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.10.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition (MD)No.9391 of 2011 Mallika ...Petitioner Vs 1. The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Madurai. 2. The District Educational Officer, Melur District Education Office, Melur, Madurai District. 3. The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Thiruvathavoor, Madurai District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pursuant to the impugned order of the third respondent dated 30.06.2011 in Na.Ka.No.104 of 2011 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents herein to sanction re-employment to the petitioner from 30.06.2011 till the end of this academic year. For Petitioner : M/s.Lakshmi Gopinathan For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order of the third respondent dated 30.06.2011 in Na.Ka.No.104 of 2011 and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents herein to sanction re-employment to the petitioner from 30.06.2011 till the end of this academic year. 2. Heard M/s.Lakshmi Gopinathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner Mrs.Mallika has come forward with this present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 30.06.2011 in Na.Ka.No.104 of 2011, to quash the order with the consequential direction to sanction re-employment to the petitioner from 30.06.2011 till the end of this academic year. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Graduate Assistant Teacher in the third respondent school, as per the order passed by the Director of School Education, dated 27.09.2007. After rendering unblemished service for four years, she has completed her probation on 13.10.2009 and she has also reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. Since, she reached the age of superannuation at the beginning of the academic year, the third respondent has relieved the petitioner from service by order, dated 30.06.2011, forwarding the said order to the other respondents and therefore, the only grievance made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the third respondent has not followed the guidelines given in G.O.Ms.No.1712, dated 05.08.1996 and also other guidelines issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu Education (U2) Department in G.O.Ms.No.1643, dated 27.10.1988. 6. As per the above said Government Orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the teacher, who is attaining the age of superannuation in the middle of the academic year, has to be given re- employment by extending the service up to the day on which the school closes for vacation. As the said procedure has not been followed, the petitioner is entitled to get re-employment. 7. Opposing the said prayer, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get re-employment for more than one reason. When the petitioner joined the service, she knew her retirement, which is falling on 30.06.2011. Therefore, the petitioner should, well in advance, have brought to the notice of the third respondent/Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School by producing all the relevant documents including the medical certificate and her written representation to grant her the benefit of re-employment, since her date of retirement falls on the beginning of the academic year. But the petitioner being a teacher has miserably failed to do so. Therefore, the third respondent on seeing that the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011 relieved her from service thinking that she was not willing for re-employment. Secondly, every teacher who is asking for re-employment, should have submitted the medical certificate indicating the fitness of the said teacher to continue till the academic year comes to an end. Even that exercise has also not been properly done. 8. This submission made by the learned Government Advocate appears to be reasonable and acceptable. The petitioner being a teacher, after her appointment on 27.09.2007 in the third respondent school is expected to know the date of superannuation, which is falling in the beginning of the academic year. When she has not admittedly made any written representation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 by enclosing the medical fitness certificate and other relevant documents requesting for re-employment till the date of closure of the academic year, it will be very difficult to accept her request for further continuance and for re-employment. 9. Therefore, the Writ Petition does not carry any merits. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Madurai. 2. The District Educational Officer, Melur District Education Office, Melur, Madurai District. 3. The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Thiruvathavoor, Madurai District. ps W.P.(MD)No.9391 of 2011 10.10.2011 TR : 01.11.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/