E.R. Shanmugam vs The Director of School Education, The Chief Educational Officer and The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School

P. Jyothimani, J.—The unsuccessful writ petitioner before the learned single Judge has filed the present appeal.

The learned Judge in the order dated 07.07.2008, passed in W.P. No. 15962 of 2008, while considering the past conduct of the writ

petitioner/appellant has found that there are records to show that the conduct and character of the appellant was not satisfactory and therefore he

is not entitled for reemployment from 01.07.2008 till the end of the academic year viz., 31.05.2009. On the face of it, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

The reemployment of a teacher who retires in the middle of the academic year is to enable him to continue till the end of the academic year is not

for the purpose of conferring any benefit to such teacher but the basis of such system is for the benefit of the students to have continuity of such

teacher till the end of the academic year.

The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education (U2) Department, dated 27.10.1988, from which the writ petitioner/appellant claims

his right for reemployment till the end of academic year makes it very clear that he has to satisfy the following pre-requisite conditions viz.,

(i) The Character and the Conduct of the teacher should be satisfactory.

(ii) They should be physically fit to continue in service.

In so far as the writ petitioner/appellant is concerned, he may be physically fit to continue in service. But as far as the conduct and character for the

purpose of enabling him to continue till the end of the academic year, it is certainly for the school authorities to decide the conduct and character. In

case where the conduct and character of a teacher is stated to be unsatisfactory only towards the end of the period of retirement of the teacher,

there can be any doubt about such version of the school authorities. But on the facts of the present case, it is clear that the appellant has attained

the age of superannuation on 13.06.2008, and he was allowed to continue till the end of the month i.e., till 30.06.2008.

His claim for reemployment from 01.07.2008 to 31.05.2009 is concerned, it is seen that many memos have been issued to the appellant as

early as on 04.06.07, 30.03.07 and 21.04.08. The charges contained in the said memos cannot be taken lightly. One such charge is that the

appellant being a vocational teacher has threatened to undergo indefinite fast and also self-immolation which is against the service rules especially

Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Another charge is that during the Plus Two practical examinations on 16.02.2007, the appellant came late to the school by one hour and having

came late, he straightaway gone to the class without even informing the Head Master. It is seen in the said allegation dated 30.03.2007, that having

came late, he accused the Head Master as if the Head Master is not having proper experience.

One other charge is more serious, it relates to the controversy in awarding marks to the students for Crop Production practical examination. The

reasons adduced by the appellant is something strange viz., as far as the conduct of the practical exam is concerned, the girl students should be

treated differently as that of the boy students etc.

It is true that in respect of those allegations, the appellant has submitted his explanations and even assuming that no further action has been taken

on the explanation submitted by the appellant, it does not mean that the conduct and character of the appellant has been approved to be a proper

one for the purpose of permitting him to continue till the end of the academic year.

Similarly on the part of the authorities in not proceedings further to the explanation would amount to acceptance. But certainly for the purpose of

giving reemployment till the end of the academic year, the authorities are entitled to take note of the conduct of the appellant for the purpose of

deciding as to whether the conduct and character of the appellant is sufficient for the purpose of engaging him till the end of the academic year.

On the factual matrix as explained above, we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the

learned Single Judge especially when considering the fact that the Educational Authorities who are Government Officers have acted as per the

Head Master''s representation and came to the conclusion that the conduct and character of the appellant is not sufficient for the purpose of

enabling him to continue till the end of the academic year.

It is also relevant to note that even if the petitioner is stated to be entitled for reemployment from 01.07.2008 to 31.05.2009, now that we are

in the middle of April, 2009 and the academic year has almost come to an end since the examination and classes have already been closed.

In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that a lenient

view should be taken since it is a case where the Head Master is attempting to victimise the appellant and in which effort he has succeeded. The

writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.