Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022/27TH POUSHA, 1943 W.A. NO.67 OF 2022 (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25599/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 6 & 7:
1 THE CORPORATE MANAGER, M E S SCHOOLS, M E S OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL, (HEAD MASTER), M E S HIGH SCHOOL, IRIMBILIYAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-679 572.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SRI.VAISAKHI V.
SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ SRI.MOHAMED HISHAM .P SRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU SMT.P.LAKSHMI SMT.AISWARYA ANN JACOB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
1 MUHAMMED ALI A., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ABOO ARADUKADAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (ARABIC), M E S HIGH SCHOOL, IRIMBILIYAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-679 572, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT ARADUKADAN HOUSE, THACHAMPARA, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD-678 593.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
6 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 101.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
---------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.67 of 2022 ------------------------------------
Dated: 17th January, 2022
['BABU KARUKAPADATH', '', 'M A VAHEEDA BABU', 'P U VINOD KUMAR', 'ARYA RAGHUNATH', 'VAISAKHI V', 'T M MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ', 'MOHAMED HISHAM P', 'KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU', 'P LAKSHMI', 'AISWARYA ANN JACOB']
JUDGMENT
Basant Balaji, J.
Respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.(C)No.25599 of 2021 before the learned single judge are the appellants herein. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. The writ petition was filed for quashing Exts.P9 and P17 issued by the first appellant.
As per Ext.P8 request, the writ petitioner sought extension of Leave Without Allowance for employment abroad. The 1st appellant rejected the same as per Ext.P17 order and the writ petitioner was directed to report back for duty with immediate effect. The appointment of the petitioner was approved and after completion of probation, the writ petitioner applied for grant of Leave Without Allowance and the said application was duly sanctioned. He was given further extension as per Exts.P3 and P4 orders. While so, the Government issued Ext.P5 order reducing the tenure of Leave Without Allowance to five years. The application filed by the writ petitioner for extension of Leave Without Allowance for another period of five years from 16.11.2021 was rejected by the appellant basing on Ext.P5 Government Order. The main question for consideration is, whether the appellant has vested power to reject the application or whether the said application had to be forwarded to the Government along with recommendation.
Rule 64 Part I of KSR prescribes that, the power to sanction Leave Without Allowance exceeding a period of 4 months at a time rests with the Government. When the specific power is given to the Government, the manager cannot reject the application and he can only forward the application with his recommendations/with his objections to the Government. The learned single judge found that the manager exceeded his power while rejecting the request of the petitioner as per Ext.P8 and directed the appellant to forward the application for extension of the leave submitted by the petitioner to the Government within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment together with his recommendation. The 3rd respondent was further directed to consider the application in accordance with law and to take a decision within a period of one month. We have considered the contention of the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.
Rule 64 Part I of the KSR is very specific, as to the power of the Government sanctioning Leave Without Allowance. In such a situation, the 1st appellant had no right to reject the application on the basis of the Government Order restricting Leave Without Allowance for five years. The appellant ought to have forwarded the same without rejecting the same. The learned single judge has rightly exercised the discretion vested in directing the 1st appellant to forward the application with his recommendations to the Government for orders.
We find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed.
S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE
