(1.) The orders of the third respondent, dated 1.7.2019 in Na.Ka.No.3228/A1/2019 and the fourth respondent dated 1.7.2019 in Na.Ka.No.41/2019 are sought to be quashed in the Writ Petition and further direction is sought for to extend the services/reappoint the petitioner as B.T.Assistant in the fourth respondent School from 01.07.2019 till 31.05.2020.
(2.) According to the petitioner, she was originally appointed as B.T. Assistant (History) on 11.2.2000 in the Government Higher Secondary School, Vijayamangalam. She attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2019. 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 30.06.2019, the students will suffer a lot and their studies will be affected. Hence, she has made a representation, dated 04.06.2019 to the third respondent through fourth respondent to provide re-employment till the completion of the academic year on 31.05.2020. 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 respondents 3 & 4 through their proceedings in impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3228/A1/2019 and Na.Ka.No.41/2019, dated 01.07.2019, 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 orders of the respondents 3 & 4 are against G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education (U2) Department, dated 27.10.1988. The respondents 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:-