A teacher, recently acquitted of sexual offences against former students, will not be allowed to return to the public school system.

School officials this week told The Royal Gazette as far as they were concerned the man's contract expired at the end of August and he made no application to have it renewed.

There was also no place for the teacher at his former place of employment, another added.

But lawyer Richard Hector yesterday stressed that his client did not apply for a job in the new school system because he had been suspended since last December and he had the allegations "hanging over his head'' until his acquittal last week.

He also noted that the teacher was out of a job through no fault of his own and he vowed to pursue the matter.

The teacher was suspended on half pay in December, shortly after several of his former female students accused him of inappropriate conduct.

But last week Magistrate Edward King found the teacher not guilty of two counts of sexual assault against two females which were alleged to have taken place in 1988 and 1996.

He ruled that he found both girls' testimony "unreliable''. Mr. King noted that one of the girls had waited more than seven years to tell about the incident and only did so after the school counsellor told her of similar complaints by students.

And he pointed to a number of inconsistencies in the girl's testimony; her inability to recall details; and her confusion over dates and times.

Mr. King said the allegations were the result of "coercion'' by the counsellor and the girl's memory was, in his opinion, "clouded by time and embellished by fantasy''.

He said the alleged incident in 1996 was said to have taken place in a classroom full of students, and that the girl admitted that she had not complained at the time because she "didn't believe it could have been intentional''.

Before declaring the teacher not guilty of assaulting the girl, Mr. King said her testimony was "unreliable, unconvincing and tainted by malice''.

And yesterday Mr. Hector accused Police of disrupting his client's 20-year teaching career based on the word of vindictive students.

"When a man has been here for this length of time without blemish and he has been teaching these same children who made these complaints for an entire year, then all of a sudden for him to become this Jekyll and Hyde. .. there has to be more to this,'' Mr. Hector said.

"These kids were in his class the year before. And there were no complaints until he separated (changed the seating arrangements for) three girls who were misbehaving and disrupting the class by talking. From then on all this nonsense start happening,'' he noted.

"One of the girls admitted in court that they resented it because he was a disciplinarian.'' Mr. Hector said he was also concerned that the matter had not been "properly investigated''.

"When they talked about these things happening in the classroom with 25 or 27 other children present and nobody else corroborating these things, it must give them some warning as to whether they should proceed to disrupt somebody's life on this evidence alone, without any other supporting evidence or any inclination about this man before,'' he said.

"The Police investigation should have been more complete. They should have looked around to see whether this was really vindictiveness on the part of the children and what type of children they were.

"They did not examine this. They were just anxious to take him to court and we are going to see what can be done.'' But senior manager of the Education Department's human resources Raymond Latter said as far as they were concerned they and the teacher had completed their contract agreement on August 31.

"He's entitled to receive full renumeration (from December) and airfare and baggage allowance to the UK or any other destination he wishes to go to,'' Mr.

Latter said.

And a school trustee said the teacher would not have been employed at the school this year due to restructuring.

"His training was such that he was not thought right to be a middle school teacher.'' However, Mr. Hector said this was not the end of the matter.

"My client has been here for nearly 20 years and he has not been on any contract. Every year his employment continued,'' he insisted.

"If it were not for this particular matter, he would be expected to continue his employment.

"I consider that he has a reasonable explanation of having his employment continued. The only reason why he could not apply for another job is because he had his employment suspended and had this matter hanging over his head until last Friday when the (court) decision was given. So the reason for applying is not his fault.'' Mr. Hector noted that he had to "push'' the Police and the Attorney General to speed up his client's case.

"If I had not done so, they would have taken a longer time,'' he added. "We are considering what he should be doing. Because he is out of a job through no fault of his own.''