Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Both appeals arise out of an order passed by the learned Judge of this Court dated 08.01.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.17092 of 2013. 2. Since the issues involved in these Writ Appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of, by a common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred according to their litigative status in the Writ Petition. 4. Aggrieved by an observation made by the learned Judge to the effect that “....However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for salary from 01.10.2013 to till the date of redeployment, as he has not worked during the said period” the petitioner has preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.991 of 2014. However, aggrieved over the order of the learned Judge in its entirety, the respondents have preferred the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.936 of 2014. 5. The short facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:- The petitioner was working as Teacher/Warden in the Government School Boys Hostel at Athanakottai, Pudukkotai District. He got superannuated on 30.09.2013. On the basis of G.O.Ms.No.93 (Backward Classess, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department), dated 01.08.2012, he had sought for an extension to continue his service, till the end of the academic year. The said request was turned down by the respondents vide his order dated 30.09.2013 on the ground that the performance of the petitioner was not upto the mark during his tenureship at the above said school. After hearing both sides, the Writ Petition was allowed with a rider clause that the petitioner was not entitled for salary from 01.10.2013 till the date of redeployment, as he had not worked for the said period and with a further direction to the respondents to re-deploy the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.93 (Backward Classess, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department), dated 01.08.2012, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to extend the service of the petitioner, till the end of the academic year. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.93 (Backward Classess, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Department), dated 01.08.2012, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to extend the service of the petitioner, till the end of the academic year. Though the petitioner gave a letter expressing his willingness to continue in the said school till the end of the academic year and in spite of the fact that even after the rejection of the request of the petitioner was set aside by this Court, still, the respondents had not chosen to extend the service of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that he had not consented before the learned Judge to the effect that he was not pressing for salary from 01.10.2013, till the date of re-deployment. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that since the performance of the students was not satisfactory during the period in which the petitioner was working and therefore, his employment had not been extended upto the end of the academic year. That apart, the extension is not a matter of right and it is the discretionary power vests with the respondents, considering the performance of the applicant. 8. As far as W.A.(MD).No.936 of 2014 is concerned, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents for more than one reason. First of all, as regards performance of the petitioner, the learned Judge had already dealt with the said issue stating that it could not be attributed to the petitioner alone. More particularly, the said reason was not stated in the impugned order nor any disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. Noting the said aspect, the order impugned was set aside and the Writ Petition was also allowed in favour of the petitioner. De hors, even after allowing the Writ Petition, vide its order dated 08.01.2014, the respondent has not taken any steps to re-employ the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in their contention. Thus, Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.936 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed. 9. As regards the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.991 of 2014, admittedly, the petitioner could not be employed, due to the non-extension granted by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek benefits from 01.10.2013. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in their contention. Thus, Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.936 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed. 9. As regards the Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.991 of 2014, admittedly, the petitioner could not be employed, due to the non-extension granted by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek benefits from 01.10.2013. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had not consented before the learned Judge with regard to giving up salary from 01.10.2013, till the date of re-deployment. This aspect cannot be gone into in the present Writ Appeal for the reason that the order of the Writ Petition was as early as 08.01.2014 and this Writ Appeal was filed only on 26.06.2014. Either he could have agitated the said aspect before the learned Judge or he could have filed a review petition. At this stage, this submission cannot be entertained. However, even after allowing the Writ Petition, since the respondents have not initiated any steps to redeploy the petitioner in order to continue his service, till the end of academic year, it is open to the petitioner to agitate his grievance in the manner known to law, for the non-compliance of the order, dated 08.01.2014, made in W.P.(MD).No.17092 of 2013. 10. In the result, both appeals stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2014 is closed. No costs.