Judgment : 1. With the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner was working as P.G.Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary school at Puduchatirm in Namakkal District. He had joined the service on 25.08.2008. He rendered five years and 7 days service before he reached the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013. He sought for extention of his service till the end of the academic year. But, his request was rejected by the third respondent by the impugned order dated 20.08.2013 on the ground that he did not render ten years of service and therefore, his request to continue the service till the end of the academic year could not be favourably considered. 3. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 20.08.2013 and sought for a direction to the third respondent to reemploy him till the end of the academic year 2013-2014 as P.G.Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Puduchatiram, Namakkal District. 4. Heard both sides. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court on 8.11.2012 in W.P.No.27377 of 2012 etc., batch. This Court relied on the earlier order, dated 19.7.2010 in W.P.No.12883 of 2010. The relevant passages from the order dated 08.11.2012 in W.P.No.27377 of 2012 etc., batch are extracted hereunder: '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.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,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 to 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, providing 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 to 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, providing 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 ready 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 atleast 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 re-employment 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 that 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, teachers are granted reemployment, 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." 8. 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.' 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the third respondent to continue to employ the petitioner till the end of the academic year 2013-2014. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.