IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35507 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.ABRAHAM KURUVILLA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY (ON LEAVE), SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHOLOGY , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695011., RESIDING AT 42, BAPUJI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.K.A.BALAN, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, MR.S.A.ANAND. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. PRESIDENT, GOVERNING BODY, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI-16. R1 BY ADV. MR.T.R.RAVI, R3 BY MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35507/2008-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 15/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 27/12/2007 ENCLOSING THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SERVICE AND CONDUCT RULES. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 25/08/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COMMUNICATION THROUGH E-MAIL WITH THE REPLY OF THE DIRECTOR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 09/09/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 23/09/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P AND AIII/PF-148/SCTIMST/2008 DTD. 15/09/2008 OF THE DY. DIRECTOR ADMN. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/09/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/10/2008 OF THE PETITIONER SUPPLEMENTED EXT.P.9. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P&A/PF-1487/SCTIMST/2008 DTD. 27/11/2008 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN) OF THE INSTITUTE THAT THE GOVERNING BODY. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P.11 DTD. 29/01/2009. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. W.P.(C).35507/08 (B)/SCTIMST/2009 DTD. 16/03/2009 OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. P&A.III/PF-1487/SCTIMST/2007 DTD. 10/12/07. W.P.(C). NO.35507/2008-B: EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28/12/2007. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RULES. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PER & ADMN.1/X/3/SCTIMST/2003 DTD. 30/08/03. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/09/09. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DECISION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35507 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the refusal to extend the leave for study purpose. The petitioner sought for extension of leave for the period from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2010. The dispute arose in the following circumstances: 2. The petitioner is an Associate Professor of Neurology in the 1st respondent-Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram. Initially, the petitioner applied for sabbatical leave for one year with effect from 01.01.2008 on 09.06.2007. But, that was not granted. Later by order dated 11.12.2007, he was sanctioned study leave for one year from 01.01.2008. Even though the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.12.2007 to the Director of the Institute requesting to convert the already granted study leave to sabbatical leave, that request was rejected. Exhibit P1 evidences the said fact. Again he submitted Exhibit P2 request for reconsideration of the order of rejection. W.P.(C) No.35507/08 2 3. While the petitioner was undergoing his studies in the United States, he was offered a position as Physician-Scientist Neurosonology at the Comprehensive Stroke Research Centre at the University of Alabama in U.S.A for two years from January 2009 to December 2010. Hence he submitted Exhibit P3 application for extension of study leave for another two years with effect from 01.01.2009. The reply received by the petitioner is produced as Exhibit P4 whereby it was informed that the leave cannot be extended and he was directed to rejoin the Institute immediately on the expiry of his current leave of absence. The petitioner sought for reconsideration of the same by Exhibits P5 and P6. Again by Exhibit P7, the respondent-Institute reiterated the same that the petitioner will have to rejoin duty. 4. The petitioner submitted another representation as per Exhibit P9 before the President of the Institute and Exhibit P10 was also submitted later by him. The petitioner was informed by Exhibit P11 that his application does not merit any special consideration. Again the petitioner pursued the matter by filing Exhibit P12 representation. By Exhibit P13, the petitioner was W.P.(C) No.35507/08 3 informed that his application for extension of leave has been rejected. These are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the stand taken is that the leave applied for cannot be extended for various reasons. It is pointed out that the petitioner had availed leave for higher studies on his own and the request for extension of leave was not granted on exigencies of service also. It is pointed out that the petitioner was granted one year study leave. Extra Ordinary Leave can be granted without pay to continue and complete the approved course and acquire the degree with the approval of the Governing Body on a case to case basis if the field of specialization is of interest to the Institute. In the case of the petitioner, he had undergone one year study leave upto 31.12.2008. The present extension of leave requested for is not to complete any approved course or to acquire any degree but to accept the position of Physician-Scientist at the Comprehensive Stroke Research Centre at the University of Alabama, Bermingham and hence this is not a case of continuation of a course undergone by him. W.P.(C) No.35507/08 4 6. Mainly it is contended that the course undergone by the petitioner is not one which the Institute is interested and the interest of the Institute also is not attracted as far as the higher studies to which the petitioner seeks extension of leave is concerned. 7. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit also. After hearing the parties, this Court passed an interim order on 20.01.2009. This Court directed the 1st respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter in the light of the materials produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, Exhibit P13 order has been passed. Meanwhile, action was proposed against him for not rejoining duty. 8. Again, by interim order dated 07.04.2009, it was ordered that if the petitioner is willing to rejoin duty, he will furnish an undertaking to that effect indicating the period also within one month from the date of the order. Accordingly, the petitioner has rejoined duty. Further action against him has not been proceeded admittedly in the light of the interim order passed by this Court. Since the petitioner has already joined W.P.(C) No.35507/08 5 service, the 1st respondent is directed not to proceed with the action initiated in the matter. 9. It is clear from the pleadings that the original period of leave was granted as applied for by the petitioner on certain conditions as evident from Exhibit R1(b). The 1st respondent Institute has got a right to insist the petitioner to rejoin the duty at the expiry of the said period of leave. At any rate, the petitioner cannot have the absolute right to claim extension of leave also. If the Institute refuses extension of leave, the petitioner had to rejoin duty. All aspects have been considered while passing of Exhibit P13. Cogent reasons have been stated therein which do not call for any interference. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court sitting in this jurisdiction will not be justified in reassessing the claim for extension of leave as it was upto the appointing authority to consider various aspects to arrive at the said decision. It was held in Exhibit P13 that Extra Ordinary Leave under Rule 22 can be granted only for the purpose of continuing the course of study for which the leave was originally granted and completing it and W.P.(C) No.35507/08 6 acquiring the degree. They were not satisfied that the leave further sought for is for continuing the study undertaken by him in terms of the original grant. In that view of the matter, Exhibit P13 cannot be faulted. Therefore, the challenge against the impugned orders fail. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to settle his pending urgent personal matters in the United States, the petitioner may have to avail appropriate leave on loss of pay etc. for a short duration and the dismissal of the writ petition may not stand in the way of the petitioner applying for such leave. Unless the said leave is granted, the petitioner will be put to real difficulty. If the petitioner submits an appropriate application, the same will be considered by the 1st respondent in terms of the Rules. Of course, the fact that he had sought for extension earlier and he had taken so much time to rejoin duty will not stand in the way of considering the application on merits. Therefore, if the petitioner submits such an application within a period of one month, the same will be considered within a further period of one month from the date of its receipt, and the decision W.P.(C) No.35507/08 7 will be communicated to him. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp