A.Syed Ayeeshal, v. The Chief Educational Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No.87 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 A.Syed Ayeeshal ... Petitioner -vs1. The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

3. The Correspondent, Ilayangudi Higher Secondary School, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 30.09.2012 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to re-employ the Petitioner as P.G.Assistant in the third respondent School from 1.10.2012 to 31.5.2013 and confer all the consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneerselvam For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman 1 and 2 Special Govt.Pleader For Respondent-3 : Mr.R.Devaraj

O R D E R

The order of rejection, dated 30.09.2012 in respect of the claim of the Writ Petitioner for re-employment, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2.The Writ Petitioner was employed as P.G.Assistant in the third respondent-school and allowed to retire from service on 30.09.2012, on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the claim of the Writ Petitioner for re-employment till the end of the academic year i.e., till 31.05.2013 had not been permitted. The impugned order states that the case of the Writ Petitioner was considered and however, the Petitioner had filed number of cases against the management and caused harassment to the management and this apart, there are certain complaints against the Writ Petitioner, more specifically, in respect of his misconduct. This being the factum, the claim of the Writ Petitioner for re-employment was rejected.

3.Re-employment is a concession. Re-employment can never be claimed as a legal right. The Writ Petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 30.09.2012. Re-employment is to be considered based on the terms and conditions of the Government Orders. When the authorities competent are not satisfied with the conduct of the Writ Petitioner, then the denial of re-employment cannot be construed as a violation. This being the limited scope of re-employment, the case of the Writ Petitioner was rejected on the ground of unsatisfactory conduct. This being the factum, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner. This apart, even at the time of filing of the present Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner was aged about 59 years and now he would be 64 years.

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 states that the terminal and pensionary benefits are settled to the Writ Petitioner and he is receiving the pension also. This being the factum, no further consideration is required in this Writ Petition. 5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

2. The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

+1cc to Mr.V.Panneerselvam, Advocate Sr.No.50823 +1cc to Mr.R.Devaraj, Advocate Sr.No.51221 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.51328 VSN VB/SV/MMS/SAR3/09/03/2018/3P/6C W.P.(MD) No.87 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 22.02.2018