IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 36617 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABHILASH ANTONY, S/O. P.V.ANTONY, LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS & INSTRUMENTATION, CO-OPERATIVE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VADAKARA, RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM, CHELAVOOR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 571. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, CO-OPERATIVE BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, CO-OPERATIVE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 571. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC,CO.OP ACADEMY-PRO FOR R2,3 R1 BY G.P. SHRI T.T. MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/04/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 37395 OF 2010 WPC NO. 37365 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 36617/2010 EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.3.1999 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.18.6.2001 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMNET ORDER DATED 1.8.2002 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF FACULTY NORMS EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 5.2.2007 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF DO. DATED 26.3.2008 EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITONER EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION AND COMMUNICATION DT.13.10.2008 EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.10.2008 EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.5.2007 EXT.P11-TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT.12.6.2007 EXT.P12-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.7.11.2008 EXT.P13-TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.28.11.2008 EXT.14-TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.12.12.2008 EXT.P15-TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.11.12.2009 EXT.P16-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.14.10.2010 EXT.P17-TRUE COPY OF COURSE CERTIFICATE DT.18.11.2010 EXT.P18-TRUE COPY OF DO. DO. EXT.P19-TRUE COPY OF DO. DO. EXT.P20-TRUE COPY OF MANDATORY DISCLOSURE SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P21-TRUE COPY OF DO. DO. EXT.P22-TRUE COPY OF DO. DO. EXT.P23-TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18.11.2010 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 36617/2010-B, 37365/2010-U and 37395/2010-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011. JUDGMENT All the writ petitions concern a common issue and therefore they are being disposed of together. All the petitioners herein were appointed by the second respondent Academy as Lecturers. This was after a selection process undertaken by them. During their continuance in service in the second respondent they joined the M.Tech. course after undergoing GATE 2008. 2. The dispute arose when the second respondent refused to grant study leave for them. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been requesting for grant of leave, but no orders have been passed on their applications. After the completion of the course, when they sought permission to rejoin duty, the second respondent imposed new conditions which led to the filing of these writ petition. According to the second respondent, the period during which they attended the course, can only be treated as break in service and thereby they will lose all the service benefits. Even though the petitioners requested for reconsideration of the matter, that wpc 36617, 37365 and 36395 of 2010 2 was not granted and they were asked to execute a bond for Rs.2 lakhs agreeing to serve the institution for a minimum of period of three years, as a condition for rejoining as fresh hand. 3. This Court passed an interim order dated 25.1.2011 in W.P.(C) Nos.37365/2010 and 37395/2010 allowing the petitioners to join the respective institutions, but on condition that they will execute a bond as required in the communication. It is pointed out that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37395/2010 joined service and has executed a bond. 4. The question whether the period during which the petitioners have joined the M.Tech. course, could be treated as a break in service resulting in lose of service benefits, according to the petitioners, is covered in their favour by Ext.P21 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.37395/2010. Therein, the petitioners joined the Cochin University of Science and Technology for the very same course. The question was considered in detail and in paragraphs 16 and 17 this Court upheld the claim of the petitioners by laying down as follows: “16. At any rate, the petitioners' service in the organsation cannot be eschewed and they cannot be treated as new entrants also. Therefore, the proceedings issued treating the period of break in service as unauthorised absence also cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are willing to wpc 36617, 37365 and 36395 of 2010 3 execute the bond for serving the second respondent for a period of three years as demanded. 17. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in the writ petitions. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders with regard to the applications for grant of leave in the light of the findings rendered above. The petitioners will execute necessary bonds to serve the second respondent for a period of three years, as agreed to by them. 5. This is a case where the petitioners were appointed after conducting the due process of selection. There is no dispute that they have been visited with any penalty pursuant to any disciplinary proceedings. What is sought for by them is permission to rejoin service after they had undertaken the course in question. Some of the petitioners have been issued No Objection Certificate for joining the course. As far as others are concerned, permissions have been sought. 6. The stand of the respondents apparently is that only in terms of the seniority list prepared by them, the petitioners could have joined the course. This is a case where the seniority list was prepared not in tune with the admission granted. That has resulted in the present controversy which ultimately resulted in action against them. In Ext.P21 judgment, in similar circumstances this Court has held that the parties therein who got admission pursuant to the Entrance Examination, could not have been wpc 36617, 37365 and 36395 of 2010 4 denied permission to join the said course. The circumstances herein are similar and the reasoning therein will apply herein also. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 7. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners who are remaining outside, will be allowed to rejoin duty. They will execute a bond for continuance in service for three years and based on the same, they will be granted all service benefits reckoning the service rendered by them including the period covered by the course undertaken by them. The impugned orders in all the writ petitions are quashed. Appropriate orders will be passed by the second respondent on the applications for grant of leave in the light of the findings above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/