T RAJALAKSHMI Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court with a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 4th respondent relieving the petitioners on their attaining the age of 58 years, with a consequent relief of directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in the service till the academic year 2010-2011.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the State appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, opposes the writ petitions firstly on the ground that, after filing of the writ petitions, an order had been passed declining the request of the petitioners for reemployment on the ground that the petitioners were occupying surplus posts therefore the petitioners cannot claim the right of reemployment as the order of rejection is under challenge. THE learned Government Advocate also contend that the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would have no application to the facts of the present case. THE reason for non-employment of the petitioners in the said case was that the petitioners there had not completed 10 years of service, whereas the petitioners in the present case have completed more than 20 years of service and were declared surplus. Second contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the object of G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education dated 27.10.1988 is to see that the education of children is not spoiled, but in the present case petitioners were declared surplus and there are teachers to look after the students, therefore there is no loss of education in case petitioners are not re-employed, thus, the petitioners have no enforceable right to approach this court. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once the G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education dated 27.10.1988 is in force, it gives right of reemployment to the teachers, in case they are superannuate in the mid term. THE benefit cannot be denied on the reasons given by the respondents. THE contention of the learned Government Advocate that the writ petitions deserved to be dismissed for want of challenge to order rejecting the representation, deserves to be noticed to be rejected for the reasons that the order is hit by principle of "lis pendens". THE relief claimed by the petitioners is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this court in W.P.No.29416 of 2006 [N.Munisamy v. Director of School Education, decided on 11.01.2007]. It is not open to the respondents to decline the request of the petitioners for re-employment after it was made, as the petitioners were superannuated during mid term, as the academic session came to end on 31.05.2010, where the retirement of the petitioners was on 01.07.2010.