IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 13.09.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.39255 of 2005 and WP.MP.No.42078 of 2005 D.Shanthi ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Correspondent, Thiruvalluvar Middle School, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088.
2. The Additional Elementary Educational Officer, Chitlapakkam, Chennai.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.11.2005 issued in Ref. No. Nil and quash the same in so far as it relates to rejecting the petitioner's request for extension of service till the end of the academic year on re-employment terms (i.e. 31.5.2006) and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service in the 1st respondent school as a Secondary Grade Assistant till 31.5.2006 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukkannu For Respondents : Mr.A.Rajaperumal Addl. Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the 1st respondent dated 28.11.2005 and after setting aside the same seeks for an employment till the end of the academic year 2005-2006 on re-employment basis.
2. The petitioner was employed as Secondary Grade Assistant in the 1st respondent school with effect from 17.8.1973, which is an aided school. Without any complaint, the petitioner served 32 years and she had reached the age of superannuation on 08.11.2005 ending with 30.11.2005.
3. According to the petitioner, in the case of teachers attaining the age of superannuation in the middle of the academic year, they will be permitted to continue in service till the end of the academic year on re-employment basis. For this re-employment, the teacher has to submit requisition with medical fitness certificate. Accordingly, on 2.11.2005, the petitioner submitted his requisition along with medical fitness certificate seeking re- employment. However, by the impugned order dated 28.11.2005, the 1st respondent rejected the request for re-employment. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. The respondents have not filed the counter-affidavit despite opportunities granted by this Court.
5. I heard Mr.Muthukannu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Rajaperumal, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the entire materials available on record.
6. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that re-employment has been rejected on the ground that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and only on a false reason, the petitioner's request for re-employment was rejected by the 1st respondent. He would submit that the request of the petitioner was rejected based on the decision of the School Committee. The fact remains that there is no School Committee at all. In order to accommodate a new hand in the place of petitioner, the request of the petitioner was rejected, which is arbitrary in nature and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and also consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service in the 1st respondent school.
7. Reiterating the impugned order, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that since the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory, re-employment has been rejected. Since the impugned order of the 1st respondent was a reasoned one, there is no necessity to interfere with the same.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The writ petition was admitted on 07.12.2005.
10. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was serving in the 1st respondent school from 1973 and had completed 32 years of service with clean record. Till the date of her superannuation neither she received any Memo, nor she was subjected to any disciplinary proceedings and no punishment has been imposed on her throughout 32 years of service. The petitioner is fully eligible to continue in service till 31.5.2006 on re-employment basis.
11. Though the prayer of the petitioner was objected by the respondents, nothing has been produced to prove that the petitioner was subjected to any disciplinary proceedings in her 32 years of service. Moreover, no piece of paper has been produced to show that there was defect in her teaching work. In the impugned order the 1st respondent stated that since her work was not satisfactory, the petitioner is not entitled to get re- employment. The above said ground for denial of re-employment is without any basis. Having not brought to her notice any discrepancy in her work in the 32 years of service, the 1st respondent is estopped from rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of service on the ground that her work was not satisfactory.
12. The object of providing extension of service to teachers till the completion of the academic session is to cope up with the curriculum, as the students should not suffer in the middle of the academic session, for want of a teacher. The change in the teaching skill and the efficiency of the teacher may affect the fruitful result as a whole. In addition, there will also be much inconvenience for the educational institutions and the management, who are in charge of affairs of the education. Therefore, the teachers, who are retiring in the middle of the academic year, would normally be asked to continue till 31st May i.e., till the end of the academic year.
13. It is settled position that teaching staff retiring in the middle of the academic year is entitled to continue till the end of the academic year on re- employment basis.
14. In C.Harris v. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Coonoor- 2, Nilgris District and another, reported in 2006 Writ L.R. 633, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:
“7. The right of the petitioner to continue in service till the end of academic year as his date of retirement fell in the middle of the academic year cannot be disputed. In fact the said right flows from the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.249 dated 9.2.1959, G.O.Ms.No.452 dated 24.3.1970, G.O.ms.No.2529 dated 18.11.1981 and G.O.Ms.No.1643 dated 27.10.1988. In the said Government Orders, the Government directed the Education Department to re-employ the teaching staff till the end of the academic year, if their date of retirement falls in the middle of the academic year. Continuity of such service was ensured only for the benefit of the students, so that they can have the benefit of teaching from the same staff till the end of that particular academic year. The reason for issuing the said Government Orders are that 'the Government of India in the Ministry of Education have suggested that school teachers, who reach the age of superannuation during the middle of the school year should be allowed to continue till the date of closure of the school for the summer vacation in order to ensure continuity of staff.”
15. In Reynold Jayasekaran v. Director of School Education (Elementary Schools), Chennai-6 and others, reported in (2015) 4 MLJ 571, a Division Bench of this Court held:
“10. In a matter where a teacher reached the age of superannuation in the middle of the academic year, this Court in umpteen number of judgments, has settled the issue. In T.Glorymathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and others, LNIND 2009 MAD 2853 : (2009) 6 MLJ 1021 this Court has held that the service of a teacher cannot be ended in the middle of the academic year, but the same is to be extended till the end of the academic year, in order to maintain and improve the educational standards of the students.”
16. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that service of a teacher cannot be ended in the middle of the academic year and the teacher should be allowed to continue till the date of closure of the school for the summer vacation i.e., 31st May.
17. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the reason for non- consideration of the petitioner's re-employment by way of impugned order is not convincing and the same is unsustainable. Since no defect and/or inefficiency of work has been brought to the notice of the petitioner earlier, by way of the impugned order, the 1st respondent cannot contend that her work was not satisfactory and that she is not entitled for re-employment till the end of the academic year. As stated supra, having not brought to her notice any discrepancy in her work in the past 32 years of service, the 1st respondent is estopped from rejecting the request for extension of service on the ground that her work was not satisfactory. Based on the uncommunicated adverse remarks, rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. The 1st respondent has passed impugned order without application of mind and the same is illegal and contrary to the earlier Government Orders. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
18. In the case of G.Menaka v. Chief Educational Officer, Chennai and others, reported in (2012) 1 MLJ 1089, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that since the re-employment period had already come to an end and the petitioner was denied serving the institution, it is for the respondent school to pay the wages for the period from 01.07.2009 to 31.05.2010.
19. In the present case since the re-employment period had already come to an end and the petitioner was denied serving in the 1st respondent school, it is for the 1st respondent school to pay wages for the said period from 01.12.2015 to 31.5.2016 to the petitioner.
20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 28.11.2005 is set aside. Direction is issued to the 1st respondent to pay entire wages for the period of re-employment to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 04.01.2019 Index : Yes Internet : Yes To
1. The Correspondent, Thiruvalluvar Middle School, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088.
2. The Additional Elementary Educational Officer, Chitlapakkam, Chennai.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Kancheepuram.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs W.P.No.39255 of 2005 and WP.MP.No.42078 of 2005 13.09.2017