IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24977 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ LAILA.P.DANIEL, D/O.P.M.DANIEL, PODUVAYALIL HOUSE, CHUNGATHARA POST, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTELD BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, MATHEW P.DANIEL,T.C.131/143, KOTTARATHIL, CHAKKA, PETTAH.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT. 2. THE BOARD OF GOVERNOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PRAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SG, FOR R3 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 24977/2008-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BOND DATED 22/11/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 26/10/05. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/09/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 22446/06. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 13/03/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.P2/5340/95 DATED 06/12/2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE.R3(a): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 9TH AUGUST, 2007 OF THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA PART II SECTION 3 SUB SECTION (ii) DATED 10/08/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24977/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Computer Science under respondents 1 and 2, against a permanent vacancy during May, 1990. In 2002, she availed of extra ordinary leave of acquiring Phd from Finland. The leave was initially granted for the period from 2.9.2000 to 31.5.2001. The period was thereafter extended from 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2005. In the meantime, she cancelled the unavailed portion of leave and rejoined duty on 24.1.2005. Even according to the petitioner, at the time when leave was availed of, she had executed Ext.P1 bond with sureties. 2. After rejoining leave as above, petitioner again applied for extension for the period from 9.5.2002 to 31.10.2006. That was rejected and proceedings were initiated against the sureties to the bond. At this stage, the WP(c).No.24977/2008 2 petitioner escaped the liability by furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.2.5 lakhs. However, as she absented from duties from 9.5.2005, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and Ext.P4 is the enquiry report finding her guilty. She was eventually terminated from service by Ext.P5 order dated 6.5.2008. Against the termination she filed Ext.P8 to the 3rd respondent. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Ext.P8. 3. However, on behalf of 3rd respondent, a statement has been filed producing a copy of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, which has come into force on 10.8.2007. It is stated that the appeal that the petitioner filed was not the remedy available and that the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to take recourse to the provision contained in Section 29 of the Act. Section 29 provides for resolution of disputes arising out of a contract by appointment by an Arbitration Tribunal consisting of one member appointed by the Institute, one member appointed WP(c).No.24977/2008 3 by the employee and an umpire appointed by the Visitor. This stand taken by the 3rd respondent is supported by respondents 1 and 2 also. 4. Going by the stand taken by the respondent and also on a reading of Section 29 of the NIT Act, 2007, I am inclined to agree with the respondents. In my view, Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner, subsequent to the implementation of the NIT Act, 2007 is misconceived and the remedy available to the petitioner is to take recourse to the procedure available under Section 29 of the NIT Act. This the petitioner may do, in which case the respondents shall complete the proceedings in terms there of. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.24977/2008 4