IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17609 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR. M.T. ANSARI, READER, CENTRE FOR COMPARATIVE LITERATURE, SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES, UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD, P.O. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD 500 046. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: ------------- SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17609 of 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered service as Lecturer, Department of English, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. His probation was declared with effect from 17.9.1999. He was granted leave without allowance for three years from 3.10.2000 to 2.10.2003 for taking up employment as Lecturer in English at M.S.University, Baroda, Vadodara, as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.9.2000, issued by the Registrar of the University. Subsequently, the leave was extended for two more years from 3.10.2003 to 2.10.2005, as per Ext.P2 order dated 1.10.2003. It is stated that the petitioner joined duty at M.S.University, Baroda on 6.10.2000. Later, without getting permission from Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, the petitioner accepted an employment as Reader in the Central University of Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request to the respondent University to allow him to continue to avail leave without allowance during the period of working at the University of Hyderabad. The respondent, by Ext.P4 letter dated 3.1.2005 directed the petitioner to get relieved from the respondent University so as to take up appointment as Reader at University of Hyderabad. Again, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the WP(C) No.17609/2008 2 respondent University, requesting to allow him to continue to avail leave without allowance. The respondent University as per Ext.P6 letter dated 25.2.2005, directed the petitioner once again to get relieved from the University. The petitioner did not act as per the direction issued by the respondent University in Exts.P4 and P6. 3. On 11.5.2007, the respondent University issued Ext.P10 memo, calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why he should not be terminated from service as Lecturer in the University with effect from 3.10.2000. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 reply dated 30.5.2007. In Ext.P11 the prayer was to issue relieving orders at the earliest. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed Ext.P12 representation dated 16.7.2008, requesting that he may be relieved from service with effect from 27.11.2004. Exts.P11 and P12 representations are pending disposal. 4. Though the petitioner was directed to get himself relieved from the respondent University, he did not accede to that direction, but insisted for granting extension of leave. Now, as per Ext.P11, a detailed representation dated 30.5.2007 submitted by him, what the petitioner wants is to get himself relieved from service, so that he could continue his employment at University of Hyderabad without forfeiting the service benefits. Ext.P11 is not disposed of by the respondent. WP(C) No.17609/2008 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent is directed to dispose of Exts.P11 and P12 representations expeditiously. Learned standing counsel for respondent University submits that those representations would be disposed of without delay and sympathetically, not treating the same as a precedent. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:- The respondent shall dispose of Exts.P11 and P12 representations submitted by the petitioner expeditiously and at any rate within a period of two months from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks