IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25937 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SEYD JAHANGEER C.K, LECTURER IN ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,TRISSUR(S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAFA, AGED 46,CHEROOTH HOUSE,PULAMANTHOLE,MALAPPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,HIGHER EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,TRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 25937 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Lecturer in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Government Engineering College, Thrissur. He commenced his career under the department on 31.1.1991. Subsequently, he was granted leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad under Appendix 12A of the Kerala Service Rules. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for extension of the leave without allowance. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 application for extension of leave was not forwarded by the second respondent to the competent authority viz., the 1st respondent. Evidently, said application was submitted on 17.9.2009. Ext.P2 application was forwarded to the second respondent by the 3rd respondent along with Ext.P3 forwarding letter. In essence, the contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent should not have withheld Ext.P2 application instead, it should have been forwarded for consideration by the first respondent. 2. Evidently, the second respondent must have withheld Ext.P2 application based on Ext.P1 G.O. dated 2.12.2009. As WPC No.25937/2010 2 per Ext.P2 the petitioner has requested for extension leave without allowance availed by him for taking up employment abroad, for a period of 5 years. Going by Rule 64 of Part I of Kerala Service Rules, the competent authority to consider the request made as per Ext.P2, is the Government. Therefore, the second respondent has no reason to withhold Ext.P2 application. In the said circumstances, without going in to the merits of the other contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to forward Ext.P2 application within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment to enable the first respondent to consider the same. The first respondent, in turn, is directed to consider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of Ext.P2 application from the second respondent. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma