S.JEYA Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the third respondent, dated 23.10.2019 in Oo.Mu.No.2641/A2/2019 is sought to be quashed in the Writ Petition and further direction is sought for to grant re-employment and continue the service of the petitioner as BT Assistant (Science) under re-employment in the fourth respondent school till the end of academic year 2019-2020 (i.e., up to 31.05.2020) and to disburse all attendant benefits with effect from 01.10.2019 to 31.05.2019.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she was originally appointed as B.T. Assistant (Science) on 02.09.2008 in the fourth respondent School. She attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that if she is relieved in the middle of the academic year on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2019, the students will suffer a lot and their studies will be affected. Hence, the fourth respondent by its proposal dated 06.09.2019 made in application to the third respondent to grant re-employment to the petitioner from 01.10.2019 to 31.05.2010. According to the petitioner, she is medically fit and there is no adverse remarks and there is no disciplinary proceedings against her. In these circumstances, the third respondent through his proceedings in impugned order in Oo.Mu.No.2641/A2/2019 dated 23.10.2019, rejected the petitioner's request, stating that surplus teachers need not be granted re-employment until the end of academic year. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the third respondent is against G.O.Ms.No. 1643, Education (U2) Department, dated 27.10.1988. The respondents 1 to 4 failed to consider the object of the re-employment to provide continuity of teaching by the same teacher. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2012 SCC Online Mad 1622 ( The Secretary vs. R.Girija and another ) and the relevant paragraphs 11 to 16 are extracted hereunder:-