Dismissed

K.v.Poulose v. the Director of Collegiate Education

Kerala HC2 Nov 2016WP(C)/7497/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the denial of placement in the UGC Senior Scale for a lecturer whose period of leave without allowance lacked Government sanction. The court held that leave exceeding four months requires Government sanction under applicable rules and revenues orders, dismissing the petition as the leave was not duly sanctioned.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failing is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to count the specified leave period for senior scale placement.

K.v.Poulose Vs the Director of Collegiate… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7497 of 2007 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.V.POULOSE, KALLUNKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE SERETARY, MAR ATHONASIUS COLLEGE ASSOCIATION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO EDUCATAION DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

R1,3,4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 7497 of 2007 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1:	A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 16/6/73 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
EXHIBIT-P2:	A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 8/11/03 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPIES OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/11/03 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPIES OF ORDER DATED 3/1/2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT-P5:	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/1/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT-P6:	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/8/05 OF THE R3
EXHIBIT-P7:	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/9/01 ALONG WITH THE PAY FIXATION ISSUED BY TH MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT-P8:	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/9/05 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
EXHIBIT-P9:	THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8/6/06 OF THE R1
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/6/9 IN OP.7378/93 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/9/01 IN OP.14224/96 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

W.P(C).No.7497 of 2007

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd November, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The issue raised in this case is with regard to counting of the period of leave without allowance availed of by the petitioner, who is a Lecturer in a private college, for the purpose of taking employment abroad. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Lecturer in a private college with effect from 13.9.1971. His appointment was duly approved by the University. He was initially granted two spells of leave from 2.7.1974 to 17.5.1977 and from 1.9.1977 to 8.9.1979 for taking employment abroad. The said periods were regularised as per Exhibits P4 and P5 orders as deputation and all benefits of treating the said period as duty were granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner availed leave from 2.3.1981 to 1.3.1986 for taking employment abroad. By Exhibit P9 order, the claim of the petitioner for reckoning such period of service for placement in the UGC scale has been declined. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the period of leave from 2.3.1981 to 1.3.1986 was availed by him before Appendix XII A was introduced in Part-I KSR with effect from 16.12.1983, the

¶33

WP(C).7497/07 2

¶34

leave already availed of by the petitioner would not be governed by the provisions thereof in the light of Exhibits P10 and P11 judgments. The petitioner therefore claims that he is entitled to placement in the UGC scale of Lecturer Senior scale on the basis of his total length of service with effect from 13.9.1971.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader contended that all benefits on account of treating the earlier period of leave as deputation has already been granted to the petitioner. It is contended that the leave for the period from 2.3.1981 to 1.3.1986 was granted only by the educational agency and no prior concurrence or sanction from the Government was obtained for such grant of leave without allowance. It is submitted that going by the rules and Government orders which were applicable to the petitioner at the relevant time, leave without allowance for a period of exceeding four months except on medical ground could have been granted only by the Government.

¶36

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, wherein it is contended that the Government orders in force specifically provided that such leave could have been granted only by the Government. The 4^th respondent in the counter affidavit placed reliance on Statute 26 of Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 were not

¶37

¶38

WP(C).7497/07

¶39

applicable to the petitioner at the time when the leave was granted to him. However, going by the provisions contained in the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 also, it is clearly provided that leave without allowance exceeding four months except on medical certificate could be granted only by the Government and in terms of Rule 64 of Part-I, KSR. The said rule also provides for grant of such leave without allowance exceeding a period of four months only by the Government. It is not in dispute that the college in which the petitioner was working was covered by the direct payment scheme.

¶40

In any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the leave without allowance from 2.3.1981 to 1.3.1986 availed of by the petitioner required prior concurrence or sanction from the Government. It is specifically found in Exhibit P9 impugned order and that the leave availed for the above period did not have concurrence or sanction from the Government and was granted by the educational agency. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not eligible to claim the benefits of Exhibits P10 and P11 judgments, since those judgments related to periods of leave without allowance which were duly sanctioned. The petitioner is not entitled to count the period from 2.3.1981 to 1.3.1986 for placement in the senior scale or selection grade, since the leave period availed of by the petitioner did not have concurrence or sanction by the Government. The conclusion reached in Exhibit P9

¶41

¶42

WP(C).7497/07

¶43

order cannot be held to be erroneous. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.

¶44

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

vgs7/11

K.v.Poulose v. the Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Poulose v. the Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Sindhu A.S. Vs State of Kerala

N.Premakumari Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Jose Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Shaju.P.Thomas Vs M.G.University

Santhosh Vs Union of India

Kurukkat Karunakara Kurup Vs the State of Kerala