R MARK Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the third respondent dated 30. 6. 2006 and consequently direct the respondents to re-employ him as Headmaster in the 3rd respondent School from 1. 7. 2006 till the end of the academic year 20 007 i. e. , 31. 5. 2007.

(2.) PETITIONER who was serving as Headmaster in the third respondent School was not given re-employment from 1. 7. 2006 to 31. 5. 2007 and he was relieved on 30. 6. 2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the affidavit filed in support of the contention, petitioner contends that he had put in 28 years of service as Headmaster besides 10 years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher and his entire service was without blemish. According to the petitioner, the impugned order does not say any reason for not giving the benefit of re-employment, which has to be given to the petitioner in terms of various Government Orders.

(3.) THE respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner's conduct and character are not good and that the petitioner had submitted an application on 8. 3. 2006 stating that he is reaching the age of superannuation on 30. 6. 2006 and due to his health condition he is unable to continue beyond the said period and he may be relieved on the afternoon of 30. 6. 2006. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the said request petitioner was relieved by passing the impugned order dated 30. 6. 2006 even though he had sent a representation enclosing a medical certificate on 29. 6. 2006 and requested for re-employment. The said request was considered by the Management and the petitioner having not satisfied the first and foremost condition stipulated under the various Government Orders dealing with the re-employment of teachers, namely, the character and conduct, he was not given re-employment and he was relieved on 30. 6. 2006. In the Counter affidavit in paragraph 6 the conduct of the petitioner is narrated, which reads thus, 6. The following are the instances which show and establish that the petitioner's conduct and character was not satisfactory:-