JUDGMENT 1. Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 5.3.2012 and consequently direct the third respondent to re-employ the petitioner till the end of the academic year 2011-2012 (31.5.2012) as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kumarapalayam Namakkal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant (Tamil) on 4.10.2007 in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kumarapalayam, Namakkal District by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 26.9.2007. The petitioner is reaching the age of superannuation on 31.3.2012. Since the petitioner, who is working as Teacher as per the Government Orders issued on their reaching the age of superannuation, they are entitled to get re-employment till the academic year 31.5.2012. The petitioner submitted his application dated 23.2.2012 for re-employment till 31.5.2012 and the Headmistress of the School has also recommended to the third respondent to issue re-employment order to the petitioner. The third respondent without considering the Government Orders, has passed the impugned order dated 5.3.2012 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 23.2.2012 on the ground that the petitioner has not served for ten years and served only for four years five months and 28 days. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. 4. The said issue was considered by this Court in W. EMYMMAL LALITHA AND OTHERS VS. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 925 . In paragraph-15, it is held thus:- "15. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in respect of W.P.No.22093 of 2008, the writ petitioner was appointed only in the year 2007 and she has not even completed 10 years of service and she is not eligible for pension and therefore, she would not be entitled to have the right of reemployment deserves to be rejected as it has been enumerated in the above said Government Orders as well as the judgments pronounced on the basis of the said Government Orders that three conditions to be fulfilled for the purpose of getting the right of reemployment are, (i) the conduct of such teacher is satisfactory; (ii) the teacher concerned is physically fit to continue till the end of academic year; and (iii) no disciplinary proceedings is pending against the said teacher. Admittedly, in respect of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, all the requirements are complied with and it is not even the case of the respondents that the conditions stipulated in the Government Orders are not fulfilled. In such circumstances, there is no basis for the communication of the Director of School Education dated 13.8.2008 stating as if the teachers who are entitled to pensionary benefits, viz., the teachers who have completed 10 years of service are alone entitled to the right of reemployment, as it has been clearly asserted that the very concept of reemployment is not for the purpose of providing employment to the teacher, but for the purpose of the students having the benefit of the service of such teacher and the eligibility of teacher to get pension is not a material fact." 5. In the light of the above referred decision which covers the issue raised in this writ petition, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the third respondent to consider the claim made by the petitioner and pass orders, in terms of the said decision of this Court referred above, on or before 12.4.2012. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.