JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner in the first writ petition (W.P.No.15148 of 2011) is the Headmaster of Gandhi Centenary Memorial Middle School at Varadharajapuram, Coimbatore. He has filed the writ petition, challenging an order of the said school Management dated 08.06.2011. 2. By the aforesaid communication, the school Management informed the convening of the School Committee on 18.06.2011 to discuss several items in the Agenda. Item No.5 of the Agenda related to the declaration of retirement of the Headmaster (viz., the petitioner) on 30.06.2011 and also to discuss the appointment of a new Headmaster for the said school. Since the petitioner himself is an ex-officio member of the School Committee, he was issued with the notice of the meeting containing the Agenda. 3. In the meanwhile, on the petitioner's letter dated 10.06.2011, the second respondent viz., the Assistant Educational Officer (Elementary Education) at Sarkar Samakkulam, who is the administrative head of the Government Aided Middle Schools, in his proceedings dated 20.06.2011, had granted the relief of re-employment from 01.07.2011 to 31.05.2012 with certain conditions. On the strength of the said order, the petitioner came to this Court challenging the Agenda relating to Item No.5, by which the petitioner was proposed to be relieved from service and sought to set aside the said order. 4. When the matter came up before this Court on 29.06.2011, this Court after referring to the order passed by the second respondent AEEO, granted an interim injunction, restraining the school Management from discharging the petitioner from the post of Headmaster, pending disposal of the writ petition for a period of four weeks. In that order, it was also noted that the School Management had not passed any order in the matter of re-employment granted by the AEEO. 5. The School Management also filed M.P.No.3 of 2011, seeking to vacate the interim order. Thereafter, they also filed an independent writ petition being W.P.No.16362 of 2011, challenging the order passed by the AEEO dated 20.06.2011. When that writ petition came up for admission on 17.07.2011, this Court directed the earlier writ petition to be posted along with this writ petition and both the writ petitions were heard together. 6. The contention raised by the School Management was that while the third respondent was working as Headmaster, he had indulged in lot of malpratices and complaints were received against him with regard to his misconduct. 6. The contention raised by the School Management was that while the third respondent was working as Headmaster, he had indulged in lot of malpratices and complaints were received against him with regard to his misconduct. When the school Correspondent orally enquired the Headmaster with regard to the complaints against him, he tendered his unconditional apology for his misdeeds. He himself requested that he may be permitted to retire peacefully on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011. He also pleaded that he will not seek for any extension of service on re-employment. On 16.03.2011, he proceeded on medical leave. It was also stated by the School Management that income and expenditure of the school were taken care of by the Headmaster and during the audit, it was found there was certain shortfalls. When a letter dated 19.04.2011 was given, he gave an evasive reply. Under the circumstances, the School Committee which met on 18.06.2011 unanimously decided not to grant re-employment to the petitioner. In support of their stand, in the typed set, certain documents have been enclosed. 7. In fact by a letter dated 19.04.2011, the School Management reminded the Headmaster about his statement that he does not want any re-employment and therefore they wanted a written communication from him. In response to the said letter, the Headmaster by a reply dated 20.04.2011 stated that he has been working in the school for 32 years. Out of 32 years, 28 years as a Teacher and 4 years as the Headmaster. He was also awarded the best Teacher Award for the academic year 2008-2009. He also stated that he was having good health condition and there was no intention on his part to go away from the school. Thereafter, several memos were issued to the petitioner. In all these correspondences, the School Management emphasised the alleged statement made by the Headmaster that he does not want any re-employment. 8. On the contrary, the Headmaster gave a representation dated 10.06.2011 seeking for extension of service enclosing a medical certificate. The minutes of the School Committee dated 18.06.2011, merely stated that there were allegations against the petitioner and therefore, it was not necessary to grant any re-employment. In the meanwhile, the AEEO, Sarkar Samakkulam had granted the relief of re-employment. 9. On the contrary, the Headmaster gave a representation dated 10.06.2011 seeking for extension of service enclosing a medical certificate. The minutes of the School Committee dated 18.06.2011, merely stated that there were allegations against the petitioner and therefore, it was not necessary to grant any re-employment. In the meanwhile, the AEEO, Sarkar Samakkulam had granted the relief of re-employment. 9. Therefore, the only question that has to be decided is whether the Headmaster is entitled for re-employment and whether the order passed by the second respondent AEEO granting re-employment should be cancelled. 10. Mr.A.S.Kaizer, learned counsel for the School Management contended that as per the Government Order if character and conduct are not satisfactory, then there was no question of retaining the teacher on re-employment terms. 11. The question relating to the right of the teachers for having re-employment benefits granted as per the Government Orders and also whether the Management can plead that the conduct and character of the teacher were not satisfactory at the tail end of the service came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1179 of 1993 and batch cases in S.Sundaram v. The Secretary, C.S.I.Diocese of Madras, Madras -86, dated 06.09.1994. The Division Bench, in paragraph 11 and 16 observed as follows:- "11. ... It is the very same teacher who has been selected by the private management and continued in their service upto the age of superannuation and has been found fit for further continuation, is directed to be re-employed in order to ensure that the benefit of their service is available to the students during the rest of the academic year. The Government Order serves a great purpose, because a new teacher who would be recruited during the middle of the academic year, would not be able to immediately assess the standard of the class and also the ability of each of the students in the class and it is possible that the rest of the academic year would be lost in getting to know the same time which is necessary for proper teaching. As a result of new appointment in the middle of the academic year, the students will be deprived of the benefit of teaching by the old and experienced teacher during the rest of the academic year which may affect their performance in the examinations to be held at the end of the academic year and it would also tell upon the standards and the results of the examinations of the students. 16. ...It is only on re-employment with a view to ensure continuity of the benefit of teaching by the teachers who attain the age of superannuation during the middle of the year, for the rest of the academic year. Therefore, the measure itself is for a short period till the end of the academic year applicable to such of the teachers who retire during the academic year. It does not take away the right of the Management to fill up the said post by recruitment at the end of the academic year." With these above observation, the Division Bench held that the measure of re-employment as introduced by the Government Order is applicable even to minority institutions having protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment of the Division Bench, the allegation made by the School Management at the tail end of the service of the Headmaster cannot be accepted by this Court. On the other hand, the Headmaster had received the best Teacher Award from the State Government for the year 2008-2009 ad it is totally unjustified in making these allegation, especially when a teacher had served for 32 years. If the allegations made against the petitioner are really true, then the School Committee should have discussed those allegations and for violations of any code of conduct, the teacher could have been proceeded with the disciplinary action. Even for issuance of any show cause memo, it requires the school committee's permission in terms of the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. 13. As per the orders of the Government which is in force and which are also referable to the 'Grant-in-Aid' Rules viz., G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department, dated 27.10.1988, a Teacher who reaches the age of superannuation during the middle of the school year is entitled for re-employment. 13. As per the orders of the Government which is in force and which are also referable to the 'Grant-in-Aid' Rules viz., G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education Department, dated 27.10.1988, a Teacher who reaches the age of superannuation during the middle of the school year is entitled for re-employment. There are only two conditions prescribed viz., that the character and the conduct of the teacher should be satisfactory and the teacher must be physically fit to continue in service. The said Government Order was in continuation to the earlier order of the Government, which was issued in the year 1959. 14. The purpose of issuing such an order is that if a Teacher retires in the middle of the academic year that may be inconvenience to the students studying in the school and it will result in academic disruption. Therefore, the purpose of the said order is not based upon any extra monetary benefit for a retired school teacher nor it imposes obligation on the school Management with any financial responsibility. But it is purely based upon the interest of the students studying in the private school. In the said G.O.Ms.No.1643 dated 27.10.1988, it is also stated that the school concerned even while proposing re-employment should send the pension proposals of the teacher to the Accountant General one year before the date of their retirement. 15. When those procedures were not followed, it is not open to the School Management to contend to the contrary. They have failed to establish with accepted materials to show that the conduct and character of the Headmaster was not satisfactory. 16. In view of the above, W.P.No.15148 of 2011 stands allowed. The Headmaster is entitled to continue in service till 31.05.2012. W.P.No.16362 of 2011 filed by the School Management stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.