JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more so in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th respondent in relation to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2722/A1/2019, dated 26.07.2019, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant re-employment to the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.05.2020 as per Order of the 3rd respondent herein in its proceedings Na.Ka.No.5358/A2/2019 dated 09.09.2019 with all monetary and service benefits to the petitioner.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the writ petitioner seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 4th respondent in relation to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2722/A1/2019, dated 26.07.2019, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to grant re-employment to the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31.05.2020 as per Order of the 3rd respondent herein in its proceedings Na.Ka.No.5358/A2/2019 dated 09.09.2019 with all monetary and service benefits to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is teacher and she served in the post of B.T. Assistant and after serving for more than two decades, she is at the verge of retirement during the middle of the academic year and therefore her plea is that she is entitled to continue the service till the end of the academic year on superannuation. 3. The said practice of providing reemployment to teachers till the end of academic year is continued right from 1970 onwards. However, on the contrary, the request of the petitioners to grant reemployment till the end of academic year, negatived against which the present Writ Petitions are filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the teachers who were at the verge of retirement during the academic year are allowed to continue on two conditions namely, that the conduct and character of the teacher shall be satisfactory and would be physically fit to continue in service. Subject to the fulfilment of the above two prerequiste conditions, the teachers who were due to retire on superannuation during the middle of the academic year, were permitted to continue in service till the end of the academic year. Subject to the fulfilment of the above two prerequiste conditions, the teachers who were due to retire on superannuation during the middle of the academic year, were permitted to continue in service till the end of the academic year. But, in the present case, the request of the petitioner to continue in service till the end of academic year was rejected on the ground of surplus teachers. 5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that if the teachers are discontinued in the middle of the academic year it will affect the students who are facing the public examination at the end of academic year. Similar issue was considered by Division Bench of this Court reported in 2012 SCC Online Mad 1622. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that to safe guard the educational interest of students Government as a matter of Policy issued Government Order extending the service of those teachers retiring in the middle of the academic year till the end of the academic year subject to certain conditions (viz) (i) The conduct and character of the teacher are satisfactory. (ii) There should be no disciplinary proceeding pending. (iii) He is Physically fit to discharge his duties. and therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that subject to the above conditions the teachers are granted reemployment till the end of academic year. 7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the rejection for reemployment was on the ground that the petitioner was a surplus teacher. In this behalf, reliance is placed on GOMs. 261 dated 20.12.2018. The said G.O. Specifically say that surplus posts of teachers in all schools are identified, and such excess teachers are posted in the school, wherever there is need and this process would be completed before 31st December of ever academic year. 8. The G.O. further says that the process of extending the tenure of teachers till the end of academic year was considered keeping in mind the interest of children. Thus, as per the G.O., by regulating the surplus position, identifying the surplus teachers in all the aided schools, the teachers, who are due to retire during the middle of the academic year, to be reemployed till the end of the academic year. 9. Thus, as per the G.O., by regulating the surplus position, identifying the surplus teachers in all the aided schools, the teachers, who are due to retire during the middle of the academic year, to be reemployed till the end of the academic year. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that till the date of retirement, petitioner was not declared as surplus teacher and therefore she is allowed to continue in the same school, till the end of academic year and accordingly she is not a surplus teacher. 10. This Court perused the GOMs. 261 dated 20.12.2018. As per clause 7(iii), Which reads as follows: “TAMIL” 11. The said G.O. makes it clear that even the teachers can be reemployed in the said school for the welfare of the students and when similar issues came up for consideration before this Court, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “11. Contending that right of reemployment is not automatic, learned counsel for Appellant placed reliance upon the judgment in W.A.(MD) No.160 of 2009 (dated 31.01.2011). In the said judgment, referring to the judgment in W.A.No.1226/2003 dated 05.01.2007, the Division Bench of this Court held that he/she is physically fit to be reemployed, reemployment can be sought for?. In the said case before the Division Bench, disciplinary proceedings was initiated and enquiry was also held and on conclusion of the enquiry, the School Management imposed a minor punishment on the teacher/1st respondent thereon. In those circumstances, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the 1st respondent thereon is not entitled to reemployment. 12. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand stands on different footing. As pointed out earlier, only the Memos dated 29.07.2010 and 19.01.2011 were issued to the 1st respondent for which 1st respondent submitted a detailed explanation. No further proceedings was initiated against the 1st respondent. In the counter affidavit 2nd respondent alleged that even if the 1st respondent was not eligible for the reemployment beyond the date of actual retirement, Appellant ought to have placed the matter before the Appointment Committee and ought to have sent the report to the 2nd respondent who is the authority to take final decision on the resolution of the Appointment Committee. Appellant does not seem to have taken any such steps. 13. Appellant does not seem to have taken any such steps. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that 1st respondent attained superannuation on 31.11.2011 and she ought to have submitted her application for reemployment much in advance; but 1st respondent submitted her application only on 01.11.2011. G.O. Ms.No. 1643 dated 27.8.1988 does not lay down any such condition for submitting the application in advance. It only stipulates that pension papers are to be submitted atleast one year in advance. 14. By perusal of the Typed set of papers, it is seen that 1st respondent had sent her application for reemployment on 01.11.2011 through? Registered Post Acknowledgement Due? enclosing her physical fitness certificate. The cover addressed to the Secretary of the Second was returned with an endorsement? addressee refused returned to sender. When the Secretary of the School refused to receive the cover containing the application for reemployment, Appellant School is not justified in contending that application for reemployment ought to have been sent well in advance. The materials on record only shows that the relationship between the 1st respondent and the School Management was strained. Regarding which the Tanjore District Elementary Educational Officer had also issued proceedings in Na.Ka.No.06774/A4/2010 dated 27.12.2010 stating that the School did not obey the order of Educational Authorities and ordered for direct payment of the salary to the teachers. Only because of the strained relationship, Appellant seems to have taken a rigid stand against the 1st respondent. 15. In 2008 (1) MLJ 312 (Correspondent, Secretary and Managing Trustee, Salem V. M. Rajagopalan), the Division Bench of this Court held that? reemployment is to be given even if there was no specific request from such teacher?. Referring to the earlier Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.1179 of 1993 dated 06.09.1994 (S. Sundaram v. The Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras), in 2008 (1) MLJ 312 , the Division Bench of this Court held as under: “2. The right to continue on reemployment till the end of academic year conferred on the teachers working in the schools either Government or private, both minority or non-minority, has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1179 of 1993 (S. Sundaram V. Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras) and the SLP preferred against the same was also dismissed. The ration laid down by the Supreme Court has been consecutively followed by this Court in R. Muthukrishnan V. Secretary, Aided Middle School, Korranattu, Karupur, Kumbakonam and the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur vide 1998 WLR 77. 3.1. In S. Sundaram V. Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras (supra), where the teacher was not permitted to avail the benefit of reemployment after his superannuation, the Division Bench directed the management and authorities to pay monetary benefits in terms of salary payable to him till the end of the academic year. 3.2. The only contention made on behalf of the appellant/Management is that the first respondent had not even made a request for reemployment after superannuation and therefore, he cannot make any complaint against the appellant/Management. But, similar contention was rejected by the Division Bench in the S. Sundaram v. Secretary, C.S.I. Diocese of Madras (supra), whereunder it is held as follow: “... We must point out here as per the Government Order, there is no question of any teacher asking for continuation. The Government Order specifically states that the institutions are to continue them till the end of academic year, provided the teacher satisfies the three conditions laid down in the Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.452, dated 24.3.1970, which has been followed subsequent Government Orders.” As has been enumerated in the Government Orders as well as in various judgments, the above said three conditions are to be fulfilled for the purpose of getting right to reemployment. There is nothing to show that the 1st respondent did not satisfy the essential conditions. While so, Appellant was not justified in refusing reemployment for the 1st respondent. Learned Judge rightly directed the 2nd respondent The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tanjore District, Tanjore to permit the 1st respondent to continue in service till the end of academic year on the 1st respondents production of physical fitness certificate and the certificate of character and good conduct in terms of G.O.Ms. No.1643 dated 27.08.1988. We do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the learned single Judge.” 12. Following the decisions, as above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the respondents 3 and 4 are set aside. The respondents are directed to issue reemployment orders to the petitioner till the end of academic year is over. 13. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.