IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20697 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL MANAF, GHC (T) 9665, KOZHIKODE RURAL, MUKKAM POLICE STATION, RESIDING AT CHAVAROD VEEDU, KALINGIN MUGHAM, PULLAMPARARA P.O., VIA.VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE D.G.P., POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20697 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.S.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is presently working as Head Constable in Mukkam Police Station in Kozhikode District has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him leave without allowances for a period of five years. The petitioner submits that though he had applied for grant of leave without allowances for a period of five years with effect from 1.5.2008 for taking up employment abroad in terms of Appendix XII A of Part I of the KSR and the leave application was forwarded by the Superintendent of Poice, Kozhikode, to the Director General of Police, till date, the Government have not passed final orders in the matter. The petitioner submits that as the Superintendent of Police has certified that he has no objection for the leave being granted and as no disciplinary proceedings are W.P.(C) No. 20697/09 2 pending against him, he is entitled to grant of leave without allowances as applied for by him. 3. On going through the writ petition and the reliefs sought for, it is evident that what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the Government to grant him the leave applied for. Rule 65 of Part I of the KSR states that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and when exigencies of public service so require, the discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. I have in Ameen U. v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KHC 945) held that Appendix XII A, Appendix XII B and Appendix XII C of Part I of the KSR do not confer on a Government servant any right to be granted leave of the kind described therein. It was held that the Government, the leave sanctioning authority, have the absolute discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description and that Government servants have no vested right to be granted leave under Appendix XII A, Appendix XII B or Appendix XII C of Part I of the KSR. Further, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent on instruction submits that there is acute shortage of Police Constables in the State and if the petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 20697/09 3 relieved on leave, it will be detrimental to larger public interest. In my opinion, in the light of the facts noticed above, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps