IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 28155 of 2003(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL NASAR B., JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE-I, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ERANHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID MR.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER MR.P.VISWAMBARAN MR.R.O.MUHAMMED SHAMEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEK CHAND FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.28155/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION DT. 12.10.2000. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.284/2000 DT. 31.10.2000 FROM THE MEDICAL OFFICER, P.H.CENTRE, ERANHOLI. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.389/01 H&FWD DT. 8.2.2001. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.22487/02 DT. 8.8.02. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.24211/C2/02/H&FWD DT. 27.12.02 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPIES OF MARKS SHEETS OBTAINED FROM THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(P) NO.65/2007/FIN. DT. 19TH FEBRUARY 2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.T O JUDGE tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 28155 OF 2003 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent, turning down the claim for grant of study leave for a period of two years with effect from 01.11.2000, as claimed by him vide Ext. P1 application, though recommended as admissible under Rule 99 Appendix VI of Part I K.S.R. by the immediate supervisory authority. 2. The petitioner, who joined the service of the second respondent as Junior Health Inspector with effect from 20.07.1995, on completion of five years' service, applied for study leave for joining the course of M.S.W. Even though the said application was recommended by the Department stating it as admissible under Rule 99, Part I, K.S.R, it was considered by the Government and sanctioned under Rule 88 of Part I, K.S.R. vide Ext. P3. Pursuant to the steps taken by the petitioner by filing O.P.No. 22487 of 2002, Ext.P4 judgment was passed directing the Government to consider and finalise the representation within the specified time; which led to Ext.P5 order turning down the W.P.(C) No. 28155 OF 2003 2 claim. 3. The case highlighted by the petitioner in the above O.P. is that there was absolutely no power or authority for the Government to consider Ext.P1 application for leave, except under Rule 99 of Part I, K.S.R., particularly when no application had been made by him under Rule 88. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the study (MSW) undergone by him is having nexus with regard to the discharge of his duties so as to equip him better to collaborate with those employed in other branches of public service as contemplated under Rule 1(2)(iii) of Appendix VI, Part I, K.S.R. The claim is resisted by the third respondent contending that the petitioner has already passed the Sanitary Inspector's Diploma Course. It is further stated that the persons holding the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II, who have acquired the qualification of Sanitary Inspector's Diploma are promoted to the cadre of Junior Health Inspector Gr.I only after successful completion of Multi Purpose Worker's In-Service Training, which in fact has been successfully completed by the petitioner and hence he was promoted to the post of Junior W.P.(C) No. 28155 OF 2003 3 Health Inspector Grade I and that the aforesaid In-service Training is intended for improving his efficiency and to equip him better to collaborate with those employed in other branches of the public service. 4. Referring to the averments made in the reply affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- Government, while passing Ext. P5 order, has not dealt with the various points raised in the representation filed by him and that no reference is even made to Rule 99 of Part I, K.S.R. in Ext. P5 order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Government is having powers to pass appropriate orders so as to redress the grievance of the petitioner invoking the power under “Rule 89” of Part I, K.S.R. and hence requests for re- consideration of the matter afresh. 5. On hearing both the sides, it is found that there is considerable force in the submission made from the part of the petitioner. As such, Ext.P5 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to re-consider the matter, taking note of all the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation which W.P.(C) No. 28155 OF 2003 4 was directed to be finalised vide Ext. P4 judgment This shall be done with reference to Rule 99 read with Rule 1(2)(iii) of Appendix VI, K.S.R. and also with specific reference to Rule 89 as to the power of the Government to pass appropriate orders so as to save the situation in the appropriate circumstances. The final orders, as above, shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, of course after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with the representation referred to in Ext. P4 judgment and copy of the present Writ Petition before the first respondent so as to have the matter finalised as mentioned above. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk