Judgment :- KA.Swami, CJ. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 17th September, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 16011 of 1993. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issue of a direction to the 1st respondent to forbear from considering the representation made by the Chairman of Tamil Nadu State Level Committee for Rational Award to Teachers for 1993, to consider his name for recommendation to the National Award to Teachers, 1993. The caseof the petitioner is that he fulfils all condition of eligibility of teachers for consideration of the National Award to Teachers. Even then, his name has no been considered. On the contrary, it is the contention of learned Special Government Pleader for Education that as the appellant/petitioner retired on 12. 1992 and the awards were to be conferred for the year 1993, his name could not be considered, because he cannot be considered to have been in service in the year 1993, even though he has been re-employed till 33. 1993. 3. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the committee has recommended the other names leaving out the name of the petitioner, as such the petitioner cannot insist that he is entitled to be recommended for conferment of national award as a matter of right. Accordingly, learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. 4. There is no doubt that the petitioner is not entitled to and cannot as of right claim that he should be conferred a national award for teachers, but he is entitled to urge that as he satisfies the conditions of eligibility, he is entitled to be considered for conferment of the award. The conditions of eligibility of teachers for consideration for the award are as follows: “(i) Class room teachers with atleast 15 years teaching experience and Headmasters with 20 years of teaching experience and who are actually working as teachers/headmasters in recognised primary/middle/high/higher secondary, etc. schools only shall be considered. Teachers who are teaching upto Class VIII should be considered in the category of Primary School teachers and those teaching Classes IXXII in the category of secondary school teachers, (ii) Normally retired teachers are not eligible for the awards, but the teachers who have served a part of the calendar year (atleast for four months) may be considered if they fulfil all other conditions. (iii) Teachers whose names were recommended last year or before can be considered again if they are still otherwise eligible and are recommended by the State Government/Union Territories., (iv) Teachers from the recognised institutions for the physically and mentally handicapped are also eligible for the awards provided they fulfil all other prescribed conditions.” It is not in dispute that the petitioner satisfies all other conditions except condition (II) as per the contention raised by the learned Special Government Pleader. It is submitted that as the awards are conferred for the year 1993 and as the petitioner/appellant cannot be considered to have been in service in the year 1993, he does not satisfy condition No.(ii) of eligibility. From the proceedings of the Director of School Education, Madras produced at page 18 of the typed set of records, it is noticed that the list of eligible teachers for conferment of award has to be finalised by 15th March, 1993 and sent to the Central Government. If the list for conferring teachers’ award for the year 1993 has to be sent by March 15,1993, it is not possible to hold now the 4 months in 1993 can be taken into consideration. It only means that for the purpose of conferring teachers’ awards for 1993, one has to be in service only during the calendar year 1992. Then only it is possible to consider his name for conferment of the teacher’s award for 1993. The petitioner was in service till 12. 1992. Even excluding his service rendered on re-employment till 33. 1993, he was in service for over 4 months in the calendar year 1992. As such, he was entitled to be considered along with other teachers. As the 3rd respondent has failed to consider the name of the petitioner/appellant a direction has to be issued to consider the name of the appellant. 5. We have been informed that the national awards have not been finalised. There is still enough time for the 3rd respondent to meet and consider the name of the petitioner/appellant and if approved, to forward the same to the 2nd respondent who shall consider it along with other names. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 19. 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16011 of 1993 is set aside. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 19. 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16011 of 1993 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed in the following terms: (i) The 3rd respondent shall immediately convene the District Level Committee, Madras South and consider the name of the petitioner/appellant for conferment of national award to teachers for 1993 and if approved, forward the name of the petitioner/appellant to the 2nd respondent within four weeks from today. .(ii) The 2nd respondent shall consider the name of the appellant/petitioner, and it approved, shall forward the same to the 1st respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of recommendations by the 3rd respondent. (iii) If the name of the petitioner/appellant is forwarded to the 1st respondent, the same shall be considered along with the names already recommended. There will be no order as to costs.