The legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal to join the post on the stipulated date, after being sufficiently informed of the consequences, renders the individual as having left the services of the University.

The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent University dated 09. 1998 wherein and by which he was informed that as he ceased to be in the service of the University w.e.f. 111. 1995 and, therefore, the question of his reporting to duty was not acceptable.

2. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner sought for an interim injunction restraining the University from filling up the post of Reader in English pursuant to the advertisement dated 05. 1999. This Court, by an order dated 210. 2000 directed that any appointment made during the pendency of the writ petition will be subject to the result of the same. Subsequently, the said order came to be made absolute on 28. 2003.

3. The petitioner joined the services of the University as a Reader in the ELT Centre of the Department of English on 08. 1988. He was confirmed in his post with effect from 08. 1990. While serving as a Reader of the Department, he applied for a faculty position in Sanaa University in the Republic of Yemen. His application was forwarded though proper channel. The University received information that the petitioner had been selected to the post of Associate Professor for English by the Sanaa University. Pursuant to the selection, the petitioner had applied for Extra-Ordinary Leave [EOL] on loss of pay for a period of two years from 111. 1995 to 111. 1997. In accordance with the Appendix-VI Clause 8(iii) of the Ordinances framed by the University governing the Academic matters, the petitioners leave was granted from 111. 1995 to 111. 1997.

4. Before the expiry of the EOL availed by the petitioner, by a letter dated 27. 1997, he requested for grant of extension of EOL for a further period of two years effective from 111. 1997 and the request was considered by the University. It was decided that such a leave cannot be granted in the interest of the Department as well as the University. Therefore, the petitioner was requested by a letter dated 09. 1997 to join duty on 111. 1997. The petitioner brought pressure even from the Ambassador of India to Republic of Yemen and made several representations. However, the University informed by the very same letter that if the petitioner does not report for duty on 111. 1997, it will be construed that he had resigned from the post held by him. The petitioner received the said letter but did not join duty. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated 09. 1998 that since he had failed to resume his duty in the University on 111. 1997, ie., the day after the expiry of leave granted by the University, it was deemed that he had resigned the post of Reader. He was also told that he will not be considered to be in the service of the University even from the earlier date, i.e., 111. 995, the date on which he had gone on EOL.

5. The issue was also placed before the Executive Council of the University on 211. 1998. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor was ratified by the Executive Council of the University. After a lapse of ten months, the petitioner sent a communication on 8. 1998 expressing his willingness to report for duty. However, the petitioner was further informed by a letter dated 09. 1998 that his request cannot be considered as he had admittedly ceased to be in the service of the University. He further made a representation dated 19. 1998, which was also rejected by the University by a written communication. It was this order that is under challenge in this writ petition.

6. Mr. P.R. Raman, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent University was unfair in refusing to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty and after the expiry of leave, he had only four days to rejoin duty. He also submitted that instead of encouraging people to work in foreign Universities, the respondent University is taking a very narrow view. He also submitted that one Dr. Thiagarajan of the same Department was granted liberal extension of EOL.

7. With reference to these allegations, the respondent Uni