K RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER; ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER, (SCHOOL SECRETARY IN CHARGE); HEAD MASTER, AVM MIDDLE SCHOOL AND DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the main writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 12.06.2010, wherein the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2010, to continue him in service on reemployment basis, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's post itself had become surplus and hence he is not eligible for any reemployment till the end of the academic year.

(2.) In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered. Pending notice of motion, an interim stay for a period of four weeks was granted. On 19.08.2010 it was further extended by four weeks. The petitioner, conscious of the fact that he was not in employment, had filed M.P.(MD). No. 2 of 2010, to permit him to continue in service in the said school. The official respondents have filed M.P.(MD). No. 3 of 2010, seeking for vacating the interim stay granted, together with the supporting counter affidavit dated 19.07.2010.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is claimed that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2010, but even earlier he was suspended on 27.07.2008 by the Secretary of the School and the suspension continue till 05.07.1999. It was on the direction issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, namely the fourth respondent, the petitioner was restored to service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and he also joined in the school on 06.07.1999. The two contentions were raised are that the petitioner did not satisfy the condition of reemployment, inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded. Therefore, the petitioner's character and conduct cannot said to be satisfactorily. Even though he might have produced the medical certificate to prove that he was physically fit to continue the services, which is a second requirement for reemployment. A substantial defence was also raised namely in the third respondent school one post of Secondary Grade Teacher post was found to be surplus in the academic year 2009-2010 and therefore, there was no necessity to continue the service of the teacher, when surplus teacher was also working in the said school. It is also claimed that the petitioner earlier moved this Court in W.P.(MD). No. 11118 of 2006 seeking for regularisation of the interregnum period of suspension and this Court by order dated 13.12.2006 directed that the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2006 to be disposed of on merits.