SREEJA Vs. AEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a P. D. teacher by the second respondent as per Ext. P3 order dated 16-11-1998. In Ext. P3 it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was in the vacancy of the 4th respondent who had availed himself leave without allowances from 1-11-1998 for three months. Later the 4th respondent cancelled the above leave and reported for rejoining on 14-12-1998. Accordingly the petitioner's appointment was terminated. This original petition has been filed for a direction to the first respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the leave vacancy of the 4th respondent. There is a further prayer to permit the petitioner to continue as P. D. Teacher till the expiry of three months. Though this court originally had granted an interim stay in favour of the petitioner, subsequently it was vacated.

(2.) Sri. E. V. Nayanar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent should not have granted permission to the 4th respondent to rejoin duty before the expiry of the leave and to relieve the petitioner. For this purpose the petitioner relies on R.48 of Chap.14A of the K.E.R., which reads thus:

(3.) The further question which has to be considered is as to whether the third respondent could have cancelled the unexpired portion of the leave. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to Note 1 to R.72 of Part I KSR. The Note states that no formal cancellation of the unexpired portion of leave is necessary when an officer returns to duty before the expiry of his leave. Therefore in this case when the third respondent allowed the 4th respondent to rejoin duty, there is a cancellation of the unexpired portion of the leave.