Judgment : The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 37. 1999 and direct the second respondent to continue the petitioner as pre-vocational instructor as per Government Orders with all emoluments, benefits and privileges attendant thereto from 8. 1999 onwards till 35. 2000 in S.Muthukumaraswamy Aided Middle School, Then Mahadeva Mangalam, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. This Court admitted the writ petition and issued rule nisi on 18. 1999. 3. The respondents have entered appearance. With the consent of the counsel for either side the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. On 1. 2000 this Court passed the following order: “Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The controversy in the writ petition being whether the writ petitioner, pre-vocational Instructor is entitled to continue till the end of the academic year. It is the specific contention of the second respondent-school management that the writ petitioner D.Kannan, Pre-vocational Instructor is suffering with leprosy. This is being controverted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 3. To find out as to whether the writ petitioner is suffering with any disease such as leprosy or any communicable disease which would disqualify to continue as a pre-vocational Instructor in the second respondent school, this Court directs the writ petitioner to appear before the Dean, Department of leprosy, Stanley Hospital, Chennai within three weeks and the said Dean on payment of prescribed fee by the writ petitioner shall constitute a medical Board, examine the petitioner and submit a report about the suitability of the petitioner being continued as a pre-vocational. Instructor in an Educational Institution and send the same to this Court within eight weeks from this date in a sealed cover.” 4. Thereafter in terms of the above directions issued by this Court, the Dean, Government Stanley Hospital constituted a Medical Board. Before the Medical Board the writ petitioner appeared. After examining the writ petitioner the Medical Board sent a report directly to this Court. The material portion of the report reads thus: “We, the members of the Regional Medical Board, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai-1, have carefully examined Thiru D.Kannan, Teacher, S.Muthu Kumarasamy Aided Middle School, Then Mahadeva Mangalam, Thiruvannamalai and arrived at the following opinion. The patient has been examined by the Skin Leprosy Department, GSH on 12. The material portion of the report reads thus: “We, the members of the Regional Medical Board, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai-1, have carefully examined Thiru D.Kannan, Teacher, S.Muthu Kumarasamy Aided Middle School, Then Mahadeva Mangalam, Thiruvannamalai and arrived at the following opinion. The patient has been examined by the Skin Leprosy Department, GSH on 12. 2000 and found that he is not suffering from leprosy. The Medical Board also confirms that he is not suffering from leprosy. His disease has been diagnosed as Vitiligo which is not a communicable disease. Hence the patient is suitable to continue as a Pre-vocational Instructor in an Educational Institution.” 5. From the report of the Medical Board, an expert body, it is clear that the writ petitioner is not suffering from leprosy, but it is only vitiligo which is not a communicable disease. The said expert body also had opined that the petitioner is suitable to continue as Pre-vocational Instructor in an Educational Institution. 6. The report was disclosed to the counsel for either side. The counsel for the writ petitioner after perusing the report has no other alternative except to accept the same. 7. Theonly ground on which the petitioner was not reappointed till the end of the academic year being that the petitioner is suffering with a communicable disease. The expert bodys opinion which has already been extracted would show that the only reason to deny re-employment of the petitioner beyond 58 years and till the end of the academic year had been denied is no longer available. 8. It is well-settled that a teacher who retires during the middle of the academic year on superannuation is entitled to for reappointment till the end of the academic year. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and completed 58 years on 17. 1999 and he had to demit his office on 37. 1999. By the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is not permitted to continue till the end of the academic year. The solitary reason disclosed by the second respondent-school being that the petitioner is medically unfit to continue as a teacher as he is suffering with a communicable disease and that too leprosy is factually not correct and not available as well. 1999. By the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is not permitted to continue till the end of the academic year. The solitary reason disclosed by the second respondent-school being that the petitioner is medically unfit to continue as a teacher as he is suffering with a communicable disease and that too leprosy is factually not correct and not available as well. To put the matter beyond controversy this Court as already stated above referred the petitioner to a Medical Board and from the Medical Boards opinion it is clear that the petitioner is not disqualified at all nor he is suffering with leprosy nor the disease is diagnosed as a communicable disease. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reappointed and continue till the end of the academic year with all benefits including payment of full salary and other emoluments. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent have to concede this well settled legal position. The only controversy being whether the petitioner is disqualified on the ground that he is suffering with leprosy. This controversy has been cleared by the Medical Board which is the competent authority. In the circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. The petitioner had produced a Medical Certificate from a Medical Practitioner certifying that he is not suffering with leprosy. The petitioner had produced a medical certificate issued by a civil surgeon that he is physically and mentally fit to continue in the service between 8. 1999 to 35. 2000. The said certificate had been ignored by the second respondent. The District Educational Officer, the first respondent herein also by proceedings dated 27. 1999 directed the second respondent-school to reappoint the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year on the basis of the medical certificate produced by the writ petitioner. This direction has been ignored. 11. The Assistant Educational Officer, the third respondent also by proceedings dated 8. 1999 issued directions in this respect to reappoint the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year. Despite such directions and orders, the second respondent-school had declined to reappoint the petitioner based upon a resolution passed by the second respondent-school committee. 11. The Assistant Educational Officer, the third respondent also by proceedings dated 8. 1999 issued directions in this respect to reappoint the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the academic year. Despite such directions and orders, the second respondent-school had declined to reappoint the petitioner based upon a resolution passed by the second respondent-school committee. It is also clear that the school committee had not referred the petitioner to a Medical Board, nor there is any material before he School Committee to discredit the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, nor there is any material before the school committee or the second respondent-school to hold that the petitioner is disqualified or medically unfit. 12. Despite directions of respondents 1 and 3, the second respondent had chosen to pass the impugned orders. In the circumstances, the petitioner has been illegally denied of reappointment and his right to continue till the end of the academic year resulting in loss of emoluments. Despite the respondents 1 and 3 issuing directions and instructions, the second respondent had chosen to deny reappointment and denied emoluments for the period of reappointment. For no fault of the petitioner he has been denied reappointment and he has been denied of the emoluments, which he is entitled. As the petitioner has to be paid full emoluments for the period of reappointment and as the second respondent-school committee had declined to reappoint him despite the specific orders of respondents 1 and 3, the liability to pay the salary to the writ petitioner for the period of reappointment has to be necessarily fastened on the second respondent school. As without extracting work the salary has to be paid to the writ petitioner as he had been illegally denied reappointment. 13. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. Rule nisi is made absolute. Consequently, the second respondent-school is directed to reappoint the petitioner for the period 8. 1999 to 35. 2000 and take him back to duty within two weeks from the date of communication of this order or on production of a copy of this order the writ petitioner and also pay all the emoluments. The second respondent school shall pay all the emoluments from its funds for the period commencing from 8. 1999 and till date of reinstatement and for the period, if any after reinstatement and till 35. The second respondent school shall pay all the emoluments from its funds for the period commencing from 8. 1999 and till date of reinstatement and for the period, if any after reinstatement and till 35. 2000 by the educational department, namely respondents 1 and 3. 14. It is needless to add that the respondent shall also settle the terminal benefits due to the petitioner at the appropriate time and without any delay. 15. The writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs.1,000. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.