Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

BACKGROUND:

1. Assailing the judgment dated 18.05.2010, both the parties to the lis filed intra-court appeals. The respondent college challenged the substantial relief granted to the petitioner-employee; the petitioner-employee, in turn, challenged the supposed inadequacy of the relief granted to him. Since both the appeals involve substantially the same issues between the same parties, we propose to dispose of both writ appeals through a common judgment. For ease of reference and felicity of appreciation, the facts as pleaded in W.A.No.1645/2010 are taken as the basis for discussion of the issues.

BRIEF FACTS (AS PLEADED IN O.P.NO.2138/2000):

2. The first respondent, a Ph.D. holder in Hindi, was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the appellant college, an aided college affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University, through Ext.P1 dated 15.09.1993. The appointment is said to be in a short term leave vacancy, during the period from 15.09.1993 to 31.01.1994. Later, he was regularly appointed as Lecturer by Ext.P2 order dated 09.06.1995. Soon thereafter, while the first respondent was under probation, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, ('the University' for brevity) appointed him as a Lecturer in Hindi through Ext.P3 order dated 01.09.1995. The appointment of the first respondent in the said University is said to be in response to the application made by him before securing employment in the appellant college.

3. As a matter of better career prospects, the first respondent submitted Ext.P4 application dated 20.09.1995 requesting the appellant Manager to grant leave without allowances for a period of two years with effect from 20.09.1995 so as to enable him to join duty in the University. Before he could get any response from the appellant, the first respondent, however, joined the University. As it turned out, the appellant, through Ext.P5 dated 25.09.1995, declined to sanction the leave applied for by the first respondent.

4. On receipt of Ext.P5 memorandum, the first respondent once again submitted Ext.P6 application dated 04.10.1995 to the fourth respondent, reiterating his request for leave without allowances for a period of two years with a view to take up foreign assignment, i.e., his new employment in the University, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). The appellant, however, again, through Ext.P7 dated 16.10.1995, informed the first respondent that his request could not be accommodated in terms of the provisions of KSR. In the light of the ultimatum served through Ext.P7 that he should join duty within three days, lest it should be treated as unauthorised absence, the first respondent sent Ext.P8 letter dated 18.10.1995 to the appellant requesting to treat that letter as his letter of resignation from the post of Lecturer with effect from 20.09.1995, if it is difficult for the appellant to sanction leave without allowances as had been applied for. The first respondent also requested for payment of salary and other benefits for the service rendered by him in the appellant college. The appellant accepted the resignation of the first respondent through Ext.P9 memorandum dated 20.10.1995. In Ext.P9, the appellant made it clear that the first respondent would not have any preferential claim for appointment in the college, in future.

5. In the meanwhile, all the appointments, including that of the first respondent, in the University were embroiled in litigation. By judgment dated 12.04.1996 in O.P.No.16586/1994 and connected cases, a learned Single Judge of this Court set aside all the appointments in the University on the ground that the selection committee had not been properly constituted. When the matters were taken up in intra-court appeals, viz W.A.No.826/1996 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court, through judgment dated 18.07.1996, as reported in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v. State (1996 (2) KLT 378), dismissed all the appeals