Order: 1. In all these five writ petitions, the petitioners are teachers employed in various schools as indicated in the following tabular column: 2. In W.P.No.27377 of 2012 the petitioner B. Nallammal, reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012. She sought for re-employment on the basis of Government Orders to continue her in service till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2013. Her proposal was forwarded by the Head Misters of the school in which she is working along with medical fitness certificates. The petitioner joined duty on 28.02.2006 and has served for about four years. So far no orders were passed on the said recommendation and hence the said writ petition came to be filed. 3. In W.P.No.27378 of 2012 the petitioner K. Jothirani, reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012. She sought for re-employment on the basis of Government Orders to continue her in service till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2013. Her proposal was forwarded by the Head Misters of the school in which she is working along with medical fitness certificates. The petitioner joined duty on 16.09.2010. So far no orders were passed on the said recommendation and hence the said writ petition came to be filed. 4. In W.P.No.27397 of 2012 the petitioner A. Paramasivam, reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012. He sought for re-employment on the basis of Government Orders to continue him in service till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2013. However, in his case, the Chief Educational Officer, Namakkal by an order dated 14.09.2012, rejected the request on the ground that as per the proceedings issued by the Director of School Education, dated 13.08.2008, teachers who have less than 10 years of service will not be granted re-employment orders and as he has completed only 3 years 9 months and 29 days, which is admittedly less than 10 years, his request for re-employment was rejected and hence the said writ petition came to be filed. 5. In W.P.No.27398 of 2012 the petitioner A. Mohamed Elias, reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012. He sought for re-employment on the basis of Government Orders to continue him in service till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2013. But however he was retired from service w.e.f 30.09.2012 and hence the said writ petition came to be filed. 6. In W.P.No.27398 of 2012 the petitioner A. Mohamed Elias, reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012. He sought for re-employment on the basis of Government Orders to continue him in service till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2013. But however he was retired from service w.e.f 30.09.2012 and hence the said writ petition came to be filed. 6. In W.P.No.27399 of 2012 the petitioner P. Neelambal, reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2012. She sought for re-employment on the basis of Government Orders to continue her in service till the end of the academic year i.e. 31.05.2013. But however she was retired from service w.e.f 30.09.2012 and hence the said writ petition came to be filed. 7. As we have noted, the State Government has issued orders granting re-employment to teachers who attain the age of superannuation in the middle of the academic year. The academic year has been understood as starting from 1st June of a calender year and ends with 31st May of the next calender year. The Government Order was introduced keeping in mind the interest of the students, so that during the middle of the academic year when a teacher retires it will not result in academic discontinuances. The Government has issued orders from time to time reviewing the earlier order with certain conditions imposed. But in no Government Order any minimum service has been provided with reference to the grant of re-employment. The Government Orders states that service extension to a teacher has been issued in public interest and for the academic welfare of the students. The artificial introduction of minimum service by the Director of School Education, the issue raised in these writ petitions is no longer res integra as V. Ramasubramaniam, J. in W.P.No.12883 of 2010 (M. Rajendran Vs. The Director of School Education, Chennai -6) has allowed similar writ petition by an order dated 19.07.2010. In paragraph Nos.5 to 8 it is observed as follows: "5. Unfortunately, the respondents have not relied upon any Rule or Government Order for coming the above conclusion. In G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education Department dated 27.10.1988, the Government issued revised instructions with regard to re-employment of teachers. The earliest order, provided for re-employment till the end of the academic year, was passed way back in 1959 in G.O.Ms.No.249, Education, Dated 09.02.1959. Unfortunately, the respondents have not relied upon any Rule or Government Order for coming the above conclusion. In G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education Department dated 27.10.1988, the Government issued revised instructions with regard to re-employment of teachers. The earliest order, provided for re-employment till the end of the academic year, was passed way back in 1959 in G.O.Ms.No.249, Education, Dated 09.02.1959. It was only after about 30 years that those instructions were revised and the revised instructions, found in G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education Department, dated 27.10.1988, read as follows: "The order first read above, while permitting the continuance of the teachers in service on employment terms on their attainment of the age of superannuation in the middle of the school, the following pre-requisite conditions have been prescribed. (1) The character, and the conduct of the teacher should be satisfactory. (2) They should be physically fit to continue in service. 2. Now it has been brought to the notice of the Government that in respect of school education department, more than 25% of the pension proposals are being sent to the Accountant General in a year. To avoid delay on the part of the teachers, who are due to retire in preferring claims and in view of the fact that almost all the teachers are interested in getting employment, the Director of School Education has suggested to incorporate another condition viz., the pension papers should be submitted at least one year before the date of their retirement be made as the third pre-requisite condition for re-employment." 6. There is nothing to suggest in the above Government Order that if a teacher had completed less than the qualifying service of 10 years for grant of pension, he would not be entitled to the benefit of re-employment. But, the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore, who is the second respondent herein, rejected the request of the petitioner for reemployment only on the basis that the petitioner had not completed the qualifying service. 7. The Director of School Education, Chennai also appears to have issued instructions on 13.08.2008, to the effect hat if a teacher had rendered services for a period of less than 10 years, he would not be permitted for extension of service. But, this order of the Director of School Education, Chennai is also not based upon any Government Order. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents appears to be wholly ill-founded. 8. But, this order of the Director of School Education, Chennai is also not based upon any Government Order. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents appears to be wholly ill-founded. 8. More than anything else, the grant of re-employment to the teachers till the end of the academic year is not actually a right or benefit or privilege conferred upon the teachers. It is actually a privilege conferred upon the students, so that they have continuity of studies during the course of their academic year. The purpose for which, the teachers are granted re-employment, is to ensure that there is no interruption in the curriculum of the children. This purpose has nothing to do with the qualifying service put in by a teacher for the purpose of pension." 9. In the light of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to grant re-employment forthwith to the petitioners from the date of their retirement till 31.05.2013. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.