K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "CAT"), Ernakulam Bench, which refused to interfere with Annexure A21 notification, by which the petitioner was deemed to have resigned from the Indian Administrative Service (for short "IAS") for remaining continuously absent for a period of five years; in terms of Rule 7(2) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "AIS (Leave) Rules").

2. The petitioner, having been borne in the Kerala cadre, had been deputed on foreign assignment to a project of the International Labour Organisation (for short "ILO") and after the period of deputation, had joined back for a day and then abandoned the service after putting in an application for extra-ordinary leave for four years. Despite rejection of the leave sought for, repeated directions to rejoin duty and initiation of disciplinary proceedings for "unauthorized absence to take up remunerative assignment" and "failing to report for duty"; the petitioner refused to rejoin the cadre. The petitioner having been unauthorizedly absent for a continuous period of five years, after giving opportunity for explanation as provided in the Note to Rule 7(2) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, was deemed to have resigned in accordance with the said Rules. The petitioner's contentions regarding his lien on the post in the cadre and Rule 7(2) being ultra vires having been rejected by the Tribunal, is before us.

3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was an IAS Officer in the Kerala cadre, having joined the services in the year 1978. While continuing so, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, called for appointment to the post of Project Co-ordinator for Multi-bilateral ILO/FRG International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour, funded by German Technical Co-operation Agency and executed by the International Labour Organization. The Government of India notification was pursuant to a request from the ILO Office, New Delhi to recommend a panel of experts for the post. The appointment by the ILO was on a full time basis, initially for a period of one year with possibility of further extension. The petitioner, who was then on leave and a Fellow in the University of Manchester, working towards an M.Sc. in Human Resource Development, applied for the assignment and was selected by Annexure A4 dated 1.4.1992. The petitioner having obtained cadre clearance from the Central Government, was relieved from the State of Kerala with effect from 1.8.1992 by Annexure A5, for joining the afore-mentioned post of Project Co-ordinator under the ILO.

4. The petitioner having completed five years, as was permissible under the Consolidated Instructions relating to Foreign Assignment of Indian Experts (Annexure A11), was accorded cadre clearance for one more year from August, 1997 by Annexure A6. To facilitate relief from the post of Project Co-ordinator, Annexure A7 dated 10.8.1998 was issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India directing the petitioner to report back to the cadre on completion of tenure of foreign assignment. Annexure A7 specifically notices that the tenure for which cadre clearance was granted stood completed. The petitioner joined back on 1.8.1998 and on the very next day, preferred a request for an Extra-ordinary Leave by Annexure A8 and abandoned his employment. The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India has, by Annexure A10 dated 17.11.1998, written to the State pointing out the illegality in the petitioner continuing in a foreign assignment during a spell of Extraordinary leave and without cadre clearance. On a consequent rejection of the request for leave by the State Government, the petitioner approached the CAT, Ernakulam Bench by O.A.No.917/1999, which was dismissed as per order dated 10.11.1999. A writ petition therefrom was filed, which was dismissed as per Exhibit P1 with expressi