Judgment :- Petitioner is a Reader and Head of the Department of Philosophy in National College, the third respondent. Fourth respondent was the Principal of the said college. Fourth respondent completed 58 years of service on 26.7.2001, but since the date of retirement fell during academic session, he was allowed to continue till the completion of the academic year, i.e., 31.5,.2002 as per G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 13.2.1981. Fourth respondent made representation in October 2001 seeking for extension of service till his 60th year and accordingly the third respondent passed a resolution permitting fourth respondent to continue till the age of 60 years, subject to the condition that during the period of extension his salary would be paid by the Management of the college. On the basis of such resolution and the recommendation of the Directorate of the Collegiate Education, the second respondent, the Government (first respondent) passed the impugned order granting permission to the third respondent college to continue the services of the fourth respondent as Principal with effect from 1.6.2002 till completion of 60 years. 2. While challenging the aforesaid order of the Government, the petitioner has contended that though extension can be given to a teacher, such teacher cannot be allowed to continue as Principal after the normal period of superannuation. He has submitted that the provision is for extension of service of a teacher and as per the definition clause 2(10) of the Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 the expression “teachers” means such Professors, Assistant Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Demonstrators, Tutors, Librarians and other like persons as may be declared to be teachers by the statutes framed under any law for the time being in force governing a University. It is further contended that under Section 11 of the Act, the Principal is statutorily made a member of the college committee and under Section 14, the college committee has to discharge certain statutory functions and therefore, only a person who is continuing in regular service can be vested with such statutory rights. It is further contended that under Section 19 of the Act, disciplinary action can be taken against a teacher and after the normal age of superannuation, no disciplinary action is contemplated. It is further contended that under Section 19 of the Act, disciplinary action can be taken against a teacher and after the normal age of superannuation, no disciplinary action is contemplated. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions it has been submitted that even if a person is allowed to continue to teach till 60th year, such person cannot be allowed to continue as Principal, which is a statutory post having some statutory functions and duties under the Act. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 refuting the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. The contention to the effect that even though a person can be allowed extension as a teacher, but cannot be allowed to continue as Principal does not appear to be logical nor supported by any authority. On the other hand while considering the question of applicability of G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 13.2.1981 to a case of Principal it was specifically held in 1995 MLJ 25 (A. KARUNANIDHI v. THE SECRETARY AND CORRESPONDENT, POOMPUHAR COLLEGE, MELAIYUR) as follows :- “ . . . It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner being a Principal, is not a teacher because Principal has also got teaching assignment. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner joined the college as Tutor, later became Lecturer and then Professor. Looking to various other provisions of the Act, the Principal cannot be excluded and denied the benefit of G.O. in regard to re-employment till the end of the academic year.” 5. In view of the aforesaid decision, the contention of the petitioner that even though the Principal can be re-employed as a teacher, he cannot be re-employed as Principal is not acceptable. 6. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that the Principal has got certain statutory functions and duties and therefore, the person under re-employment should not be engaged as a Principal is also equally untenable. Under G.O.Ms.No.281, teachers are allowed to continue till the end of the academic session. Even though such an extension period is not counted for other benefits such as pension, etc., it goes without saying that for the purpose of discharging the statutory functions, such person is entitled to all the rights and subjected to all the liabilities. Under G.O.Ms.No.281, teachers are allowed to continue till the end of the academic session. Even though such an extension period is not counted for other benefits such as pension, etc., it goes without saying that for the purpose of discharging the statutory functions, such person is entitled to all the rights and subjected to all the liabilities. The only difference between the extension till the end of the academic session and re-employment till 60th year seems to be that the Government is not liable to pay the salary after the age of superannuation or the extended age of superannuation when G.O.Ms.No.281 is made applicable. In other words, after the extension of a person’s service till the end of the next academic session is over, if the person is re-employed till completion of 60 years, the salary for such period has to be borne by the Management. In the present case, there is no dispute that such resolution has been passed and the Government has also made it clear in the Order. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.