IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16096 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.C.A.FRANCIS, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY NOW ON LEAVE WITHOUT ALLOWANCE, VIDYA NAGAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY - P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY - P.O., KOCHI - 682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHI U FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16096 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P4 order by which the Syndicate refused to ratify the action taken by the Vice Chancellor in sanctioning extension of leave without allowance applied for by the petitioner for the period from 29.4.2009 to 28.4.2010. 2. The petitioner is working as Professor in the School of Management Studies under the respondent University. By Ext.P1, he was granted leave without allowance from 29.4.2006 to 28.4.2009 for taking up foreign employment with Albertian Institute of Management, Ernakulam. The petitioner, on 25.3.2009, applied for extension of leave without allowance. This was recommended by the Director of the School of Management Studies and by Ext.P3, the Vice Chancellor sanctioned the same subject to ratification of the Syndicate. 3. It was mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no separate reasons have been shown in Ext.P4 to justify the refusal to grant leave without allowance. It is pointed out that the petitioner had not applied for leave without allowance for a long period and the rejection of wpc 16096/2009 2 the same is arbitrary and discriminatory. The case of one Shri Sam Thomas who was granted leave without allowance for five years, is also mentioned in the writ petition in support of the plea. 4. In the counter affidavit, the University has taken the stand that the Syndicate, in its discretion, has refused to concur with the action taken by the Vice Chancellor. It is further pointed out that in view of Rule 65 of Part I K.S.R., leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in the exigencies of public service, discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any discretion is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it. As regards the case of Shri Sam Thomas, it is pointed out that by Ext.R1(a), the request of the said Lecturer has also been rejected. 5. The question is whether the petitioner can claim the leave as a matter of right. Going by Rule 65 of Part I K.S.R., leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely up to the discretion of the authority concerned to grant or refuse to grant leave or to revoke the leave already granted. It is true that the Vice Chancellor has chosen to extend the leave by Ext.P3, but with a condition that it should be subject to ratification by the Syndicate. Therefore, it was open for the Syndicate to consider the entire matter. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no separate detailed reasons have been shown by the Syndicate, I am of the wpc 16096/2009 3 view that in a matter like this, the order is not liable to be quashed on the ground that detailed reasons have not been stated. When the petitioner himself has no enforceable right to get the leave further extended and when the authority has chosen, in its discretion, not to grant extension, it cannot be said that the order is bad in law. He has been directed to rejoin duty, obviously since his services are required by the University. What are the necessary steps to be taken in the exigencies of service, is entirely for the authority concerned to decide. No malafides have also been alleged in the matter. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/