JUDGMENT 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.(MD)No.9986 of 2013, dated 24.06.2013 wherein the Appellant has prayed for issuing Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to grant reemployment to the Appellant, till the end of the academic year i.e., 31.05.2014. 2. By consent, main writ appeal itself was taken up for disposal. 3. The case of the Appellant before the learned single Judge was that she was appointed as Noon Meal Organiser in a Panchayat Union Primary school, Ammaiyanaickanur, Nilakottai Panchayat Union on 29.01.1983 and based on the special recruitment test conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board for absorbing qualified Noon Meal Organiser as B.T. Assistant, she was selected as a Graduate Teacher (History) by the Teachers Recruitment Board and she was given appointment as Graduate Teacher (History) by the Joint Director of School Education, on 30.08.2006. The Appellant was relieved from Noon Meal Organiser post on 01.09.2006 and now she is serving as B.T. Assistant (History) in the third respondent school. The Appellant is reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013 and she being a teacher she is entitled to get reemployment till the end of the academic year i.e, 31.05.2014 as per G.O.Ms.No.452, Education Department, dated 24.03.1970 which imposes three conditions for reemploying the teachers who are reaching the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year, that the teachers must be physically fit for further service, no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them and the work and conduct are satisfactory. The said conditions were reiterated in the G.O.Ms.No.1351, Education Department, dated 28.06.1976 and G.O.Ms.No.1643, Education Department, dated 27.10.1988. The Appellant submitted a representation seeking reemployment and the said representation having not been considered by the Chief Educational Officer who is the competent authority, the Appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge directed the second respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders as expeditiously as possible. 4. When the matter posted on 26.06.2013, learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice and get instructions as to whether the second respondent has passed any order as on date. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the second respondent has passed an order rejecting the request of the Appellant on the ground that she has not completed 10 years of service as teacher to get reemployment. 5. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the second respondent has passed an order rejecting the request of the Appellant on the ground that she has not completed 10 years of service as teacher to get reemployment. 5. The issue as to whether for seeking reemployment, a teacher should have completed 10 years of service was already considered by the learned single Judge in the decision reported in W. Emyammal Lalitha and another v. Chief Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District and others, (2009) 2 MLJ 925 . One of us (N.P.V.J) also allowed similar writ petitions. In the said judgment, it is held that the above referred Government Orders, no where stipulates a condition that the teacher seeking reemployment should have 10 years of completed service for reemployment. Hence, the decision taken by the second respondent not to grant reemployment to the Appellant on the ground that she has not completed 10 years of service is erroneous. Following the said decision, number of teachers approached this Court by way of batch of cases and the same are allowed and the said orders were implemented by Department. 6. In the light of the said settled position and the Government Orders empowering the grant of reemployment to the teachers retiring during the middle of the academic year till the end of the academic year, the second respondent is bound to re-consider the decision he has already taken and pass fresh orders in terms of the Government Orders and judgment referred to above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till orders are passed, the Appellant is entitled to continue in service. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Writ Appeal disposed of.