K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's leave application at Ext.P1 has been declined by Ext.P3.

2. The contentions of the petitioner are two fold: one, that the Management could not have rejected the application for leave by themselves and any leave which is beyond four months has to be sent to the Government for approval. The next contention is that the reason stated in Ext.P3 is not sustainable, since Ext.P4 Government Order specifically permits appointment of Guest Lecturers.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent refutes both the said contentions with reference to the rules and with reference to the permission granted in Ext.P4 and contends that the discretion exercised by the Management cannot be easily interfered with by this Court.

4. The contention of prior approval is based on Statute 26 of Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes, 1997 (for brevity 'First Statutes'). Statute 26 speaks of grant of leave and as per sub-statute (1), the authority conferred is on the Principal to grant Casual Leave and all other kinds of leave has to be granted by the educational agency on the recommend