IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12749 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJEEV.T., S/O.THOMPSON, SAJINI, LOURDEPURAM, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A.E.O., KATTAKADA. 4. HEADMASTER, GOVT. L.P.SCHOOL, KONNIYOOR, POOVACHAL P.O., KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.12749 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order by which the petitioner's petition dated 5.9.2007, for service benefits for the period of study leave taken by the petitioner for acquisition of B.Ed. degree, was rejected. The petitioner was granted leave by Ext.P1 order 19.10.2005 under Rule 88 of of Part I of KSR. The petitioner now claims that he is entitled to leave under Rule 91 of Part I of KSR. He also submits that in similar cases, by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the Government itself had given benefits pursuant to judgment of this court. 2. Learned Government Pleader opposes the same. He points out that Rule 91 is applicable to only for officers officiating or in temporary service and what is applicable to the petitioner is only Rule 99 for which the conditions prescribed in Appendix VI have to be satisfied. The learned Government Pleader would also submit that Exts.P4 and P5 orders have not been passed in similar cases. According to him, those were cases, where leave was sanctioned prior to deletion of Rule 33(b) in Part I of KSR. w.p.c.12749/08 2 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I find that Ext.P1 order granting leave to the petitioner is dated 19.10.2005. It is clear from Ext.P3 order that the first time the petitioner represented against the same was on 5.9.2007, almost two years after the grant of leave. Leave was granted under Rule 88 of Part I of KSR with the specific condition that the leave period will not be counted for any service benefits including pension. The challenge of the petitioner to Ext.P1 almost two years thereafter is highly belated and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary powers in favour of the petitioner in the absence of any explanation for the undue delay. Further, after having obtained leave on the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1, the petitioner cannot thereafter turn round and claim that he is entitled to service benefits also. Exts.P4 and P5 are not in similar cases, since those were cases where leave was sanctioned prior to amendment to Rule 33(b) (2) in Part I of KSR by SRO No.516/05 dated 11.5.2005, whereas Ext.P1 order is dated 19.10.2005. Therefore, leave was granted to the petitioner subsequent to that amendment. Therefore, the petitioner's right has to be decided taking into account that amendment also, in w.p.c.12749/08 3 which case, Exts.P4 and P5 would not be applicable to the petitioner's case. 5. The petitioner would further submit that since B.Ed. is beneficial to the school, he is eligible for the benefits under Appendix VI to Part I of KSR. I do not agree. The petitioner is only an LPSA. The qualification prescribed for LPSA is only TTC. In fact for appointment as LPSA, B.Ed. is not a necessary qualification at all and persons having B.Ed. alone are not even entitled to apply for the post of LPSA, without TTC. As such, acquisition of B.Ed. would not in any way benefit either the students or the school. If at all, it would only benefit the petitioner for his future prospects for promotion. For all the above reasons, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.12749/08 4