IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the extant Rules and Regulations, the lack of authority to add fresh conditions without proper consent, and the potential for gross and manifest failure of justice if relief is denied.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

This Original Petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.6.2024 in O.A.(CAT) No. 181/329/2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal, by the aforesaid order, considered the interim prayer made by the petitioner for issuing directives to the 3rd respondent to implement the decision of the Governing Body to grant ‘Secondment Leave’ and rejected the same.

2. In view of the urgency involved, this matter was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides.

3. For understanding the grievance of the petitioner, brief facts of the case, as is borne out from the Original application needs to be stated:

a) The petitioner is an Interventional Radiologist who has been working as a Professor in the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Institute’ for the sake of brevity). He joined the Institute as an Assistant Professor in the year 2012 and, after completing his probation period, has gone up the career path to the post of Professor.

b) Medical professionals like the petitioner, who aspire to hone their professional skills even more, avail sabbatical leave or Secondment Leave and join other specialized medical institutions in India and abroad. Provisions for the same are available in the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Service and Personnel Conduct Rules (‘Rules’ for the sake of brevity), which are framed in tune with the provisions of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Act, 1980 (‘The Act’ for the sake of brevity). Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology Regulations, 1981, (‘Regulations’ for the sake of brevity) have also been framed for regulating the functioning of the Institute.

c) The petitioner being a professor has been included in the category of academic staff as per the Rules. The Governing Body is the appointing authority as per Rule 2 of the Rules and the said authority is empowered to grant various categories of leave to the academic staff in terms of the Act, Rules, and Regulations.

d) In terms of the provisions of Rule 26A of Chapter IV of the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to apply for Secondment Leave. The leave is granted for a maximum period of one year once in four years and as stipulated in the Rules. The Governing Body as per Resolution No. 11 dated 6.10.2021 has incorporated a condition that those officers who avail Secondment Leave exceeding six months shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 200/- binding him to serve the Institute for a minimum period of three years from the date of rejoining the Institute.

e) The petitioner, accepting the terms of the Rules and Regulations, and hoping that he would be granted Secondment Leave, applied for the post of Consultant in the Department of Clinical Radiology in the Barking, Havering, and Redbridge University Hospitals, NHS Trust, United Kingdom (‘UK Hospital’ for the sake of brevity). His application was accepted and he was issued with a Sponsorship Certificate. As per the said Certificate, he was required to complete the submission of the application within three months from the date of the certificate appending a copy of the certificate granting leave to the petitioner by the Institute.

f) He states that on receipt of Annexure-A2, he submitted an application seeking Secondment Leave for joining the UK Hospital as a Consultant and Interventional Neuro Radiologist. The Governing Body of the Institute convened in the month of January, 2023 and granted Secondment Leave on 19.01.2024. However, the same was communicated by a mail dated 4.3.2024. As per the provisions of the Rules and Regulations, the Director of the Institute, being the executive authority, was required to communicate the decision to the petitioner in the form of an order and grant leave to the petitioner