DEEPA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the Headmaster or the Manager of an aided school can make a remark, in exercise of their jurisdiction to make remarks under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 58 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, that leave without allowances for a period of 5 years sought for by a teacher should not be granted. The petitioner was working as High School Assistant at R.V. Union High School, Cherai, Ernakulam District. The school is a staff management school. The petitioner applied for leave without allowances to join her husband, who was working abroad, for a period of five years commencing from 11/6/1998 to 10/6/2003. The leave was granted for that period as per Exhibit P1 order passed by the Government. She again applied for extension of the leave for a further period of five years from 11/6/2003 to 10/6/2008, which was granted as per Exhibit P2 dated 2/7/2003. Before the expiry of the leave granted as per Exhibit P2, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 application dated 8/2/2008 for leave without allowance for five years from 11/6/2008 to 10/6/2013. The Manager issued Exhibit P7 dated 7/3/2008, which reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner filed Exhibit P8 representation dated 18/3/2008 before the District Educational Officer, Ernakulam requesting to process the leave application and forward the same to the Government within the time limit specified in the Circulars issued by the Government. The Government had issued Circulars dated 11/11/1997, 29/12/1997 and 21/05/1999 (Exhibits P4 to P6) providing guidelines for speedy processing and forwarding of the applications to the Government. Time limits were also fixed within which the Manager, Headmaster and the Controlling Officer had to act. Since the leave application was not forwarded to the Government, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 14392 of 2008, in which, an interim order was passed directing the District Educational Officer to forward Exhibit P3 application for leave submitted by the petitioner to the Government within a period of three days. The interim order was complied with. W.P.(C) No. 14392 of 2008 was disposed of as per Exhibit P10 judgment dated 28/5/2008 directing the Government to dispose of the leave application on or before 10/6/2008.

(3.) The Government considered the leave application and rejected the same as per Exhibit P12 order dated 9/6/2008. The reason for rejection of the leave application was that the Controlling Officer and the Appointing Authority had not recommended and the Educational Authorities had not countersigned the leave application. It was also pointed out that No-objection Certificate, Lien Certificate, declarations etc were not authenticated by the Manager. Exhibit P12 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Various other reliefs which are ancillary to the main relief are also prayed for. There is also a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction leave without allowances to the petitioner for the aforesaid period and also for a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (The District Educational Officer and the Headmaster-cum- Manager) for the inordinate delay on their part in processing and forwarding the leave application.