E.R.Shanmugam v. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.04.2009C O R A M:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANW.A.No.1074 of 2008E.R.Shanmugam .. Appellant vs.1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.2. The Chief Educational Officer, Sathuvacherry, Vellore District.3. The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Kangayanallur, Vellore District... RespondentsWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Actagainst the order of this Court in W.P.No.15962 of 2008 dated07.07.2008.WP No.15962/2008: Petition presented to this court to issue awrit of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent inconnection with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent inNa.Ka.No.3828/A1/2008 dated 24.6.2008 and 3rd respondent inNa.Ka.No.98/08-09 dated 30.6.2008 and quash the same and direct therespondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till endof the academic year i.e. 30.05.2008 and grant him all servicemonetary benefits.For Appellant : Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.MuthappanFor respondents : Mr.S.Rajasekar Additional Government Pleader (Edu.)- - - - -J U D G M E N TP.JYOTHIMANI, J.The unsuccessful writ petitioner before the learned single https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge has filed the present appeal.2. The learned Judge in the order dated 07.07.2008, passed inW.P.No.15962 of 2008, while considering the past conduct of the writpetitioner / appellant has found that there are records to show thatthe conduct and character of the appellant was not satisfactory andtherefore he is not entitled for reemployment from 01.07.2008 tillthe 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 learnedsingle Judge.3. The reemployment of a teacher who retires in the middle ofthe academic year is to enable him to continue till the end of theacademic year is not for the purpose of conferring any benefit tosuch teacher but the basis of such system is for the benefit of thestudents to have continuity of such teacher till the end of theacademic year.4. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education (U2)Department, dated 27.10.1988, from which the writpetitioner/appellant claims his right for reemployment till the endof academic year makes it very clear that he has to satisfy thefollowing 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 bephysically fit to continue in service. But as far as the conductand character for the purpose of enabling him to continue till theend of the academic year, it is certainly for the school authoritiesto decide the conduct and character. In case where the conduct andcharacter of a teacher is stated to be unsatisfactory only towardsthe end of the period of retirement of the teacher, there can be anydoubt about such version of the school authorities. But on the factsof the present case, it is clear that the appellant has attained theage of superannuation on 13.06.2008, and he was allowed to continuetill the end of the month i.e., till 30.06.2008.5. His claim for reemployment from 01.07.2008 to 31.05.2009 isconcerned, it is seen that many memos have been issued to theappellant as early as on 04.06.07, 30.03.07 and 21.04.08. Thecharges contained in the said memos cannot be taken lightly. Onesuch charge is that the appellant being a vocational teacher hasthreatened to undergo indefinite fast and also self-immolation whichis against the service rules especially Rule 17(b) of the Tamil NaduCivil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Another charge is that during the Plus Two practicalexaminations on 16.02.2007, the appellant came late to the school byone hour and having came late, he straightaway gone to the classwithout even informing the Head Master. It is seen in the saidallegation dated 30.03.2007, that having came late, he accused theHead Master as if the Head Master is not having proper experience.7. One other charge is more serious, it relates to thecontroversy in awarding marks to the students for Crop Productionpractical examination. The reasons adduced by the appellant issomething strange viz., as far as the conduct of the practical examis concerned, the girl students should be treated differently asthat of the boy students etc.,8. It is true that in respect of those allegations, theappellant has submitted his explanations and even assuming that nofurther action has been taken on the explanation submitted by theappellant, it does not mean that the conduct and character of theappellant has been approved to be a proper one for the purpose ofpermitting him to continue till the end of the academic year.9. Similarly on the part of the authorities in not proceedingsfurther to the explanation would amount to acceptance. Butcertainly for the purpose of giving reemployment till the end of theacademic year, the authorities are entitled to take note of theconduct of the appellant for the purpose of deciding as to whetherthe conduct and character of the appellant is sufficient for thepurpose of engaging him till the end of the academic year.10. On the factual matrix as explained above, we are of theconsidered view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere withthe order of the learned Single Judge especially when consideringthe fact that the Educational Authorities who are GovernmentOfficers have acted as per the Head Master's representation and cameto the conclusion that the conduct and character of the appellant isnot sufficient for the purpose of enabling him to continue till theend of the academic year.11. It is also relevant to note that even if the petitioner isstated to be entitled for reemployment from 01.07.2008 to31.05.2009, now that we are in the middle of April, 2009 and theacademic year has almost come to an end since the examination andclasses have already been closed. 12. In such view of the matter, it is not possible to acceptthe contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for theappellant that a lenient view should be taken since it is a casewhere the Head Master is attempting to victimise the appellant and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in which effort he has succeeded. The writ appeal fails and thesame is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkkTo 1. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.2. The Chief Educational Officer, Sathuvacherry, Vellore District.3. The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Kangayanallur, Vellore District.+1cc to Mr.T.Ayngaraprabhu, Advocate Sr 15459+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 15008NM(CO)km/27.4. W.A.No.1074 of 2008