M R SURYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a Lecturer in Commerce in the service of the Mysore University has presented this petition praying interalia for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the University to treat the period from 25-9-1973 to 31-3-1978 during which he had gone to Birmingham University in U.K. for higher studies, as leave with salary and pay all the arrears and also for other reliefs:

(2.) The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner are as these: The petitioner was a Lecturer in Commerce in the service of the Mysore University. The Government of India evolved a Scheme entitled "The Award of National Scholarship for Studies Abroad." The Government of India selected him for the award of Scholarship after his name was sponsored by the Mysore University. After the Scholarship was awarded, the petitioner went to U.K. and joined the Birmingham University. During the stay at Birmingham he made a grievance to the effect that the salary and allowances to which he was entitled to under the Rules had not been given to him by sanctioning the necessary study leave with allowances and as a result he was put to considerable hardship as the amount of scholarship was not sufficient to maintain himself and also his family in India. Thereafter, after protracted correspondence by communication dated 26-12-1974 (Ex. L1) leave was sanctioned as below: i. Half-pay leave for 40 days from 25-9-1973 ii. The rest will be L.W.A. from 4-11-73 to 24-9-1979 (inclusive) Note: No further extension of leave beyond four years will be granted." The petitioner protested against the grant of half pay leave of 40 days and leave without allowance for the rest of the four years, by making representations. The request was rejected by communication dated 1st December 1975 (Ex.N). The relevant portion of that letter which was addressed by the Registrar to the Professor and Head of the Department of Commerce reads-

(3.) In the statement of objection filed by respondent-1 the specific stand taken by the University is, that the claim of the petitioner was based on his being a sponsored candidate but actually he was not a sponsored candidate. In the statement of objection the correctness of Ex.A1 produced by the petitioner in support of his plea that the University had sponsored him, has been disputed. It is specifically averred that the Registrar of the University had not signed in token of undertaking the responsibility for the petitioner a sponsored candidate. It is also further averred that as early as in 1973, itself the University had made it clear to the petitioner that he had to go on study leave by taking leave on salary to whatever extent he had leave to his credit and by taking rest of the leave as leave without allowance.