IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37168 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEBA ALICE JOSHY, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER APPLICATION, MARIN COLLEGE, KUTTIKKANAM, PODIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHYJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, IDUKKI 3. MANAGER, MARIAN COLLEGE KUTTIKKANM, KUTTIKKANAM PO., PEERMADE, IDUKKI DIST. *ADDL. R4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R5 HIGHER EDUCATION SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R6 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. (*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/12/2008 IN I.A.NO.16288/2008) SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.37168 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that on securing admission as a post graduate student in Lancaster University, she made application for extension of the Leave Without Allowance for a further period of five years. That was rejected by Ext.P2 by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that subsequently, though she submitted a fresh application with the recommendation of the Principal, the 3rd respondent rejected the same and the reason, according to her is that she did not agree to the demand of the 3rd respondent to pay an amount of rupees five lakhs for meeting the expenditure involved for making substitute arrangement. 2. Since the petitioner was required to join the course immediately, the petitioner again submitted Ext.P5. That also did not evoke any response from the Manager. Thereupon, the petitioner states that she submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 1st respondent, requesting his intervention in the matter so that she can join the University. In this writ petition although the petitioner is WP(C) No.37168/2008 -2- seeking an order requiring the 3rd respondent to grant Leave Without Allowance, in view of the facts of the case, I do not think it proper for this Court to issue such a positive direction. 3. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and as Ext.P7 representation has been filed before the 1st respondent, I direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P7, if the same has been received and is pending. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, who shall consider the application and he considers it appropriate, will forward the same to the additional 4th respondent for appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg