SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Vs. V R RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the Government to extend the leave granted to respondents 1 and 2 by one year for completing the Ph.D. Course. We have heard Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The grievance of the State is that respondents 1 and 2 who are Senior Lecturers with respondents 3 and 4 respectively were granted two years' leave vide Exts. P1 and P2 for undertaking Ph.D. Course and for acquiring the Degree on condition that the two years leave with salary and allowances granted will not be extended. In fact pursuant to Exts. P1 and P2, respondents 1 and 2 furnished bond to the Government undertaking to comply with the Government orders strictly in terms thereof. The case of the appellants is that in breach of the conditions contained in Government Orders Ext. P1 and P2 sanctioning leave and also in breach of the undertaking given by respondents 1 and 2, they applied for extension of leave by one year to complete Ph.D. Course study and the same was illegally recommended by the UGC as well as by the management. Counsel appearing for the management submitted that the management does not have serious role in the matter and they go by the advice of the UGC which reimburses salary and allowances paid to substitute teachers appointed by the Government in the place of teachers who are granted leave to acquire Ph.D.

(3.) After hearing Government Pleader and counsel appearing for respondents, we are absolutely satisfied that Government is entitled to enforce the conditions contained in Exts. P1 and P2 and also the conditions undertaken by respondents 1 and 2 in the bond executed by them. In the first place, we notice that leave was granted to first respondent when she had already completed 50 years of age. It may be noticed that when Ext. P1 was issued, the retirement age of college Lecturers was 55 years and we do not know what purpose the Government and the public will receive by a college Lecturer acquiring Ph.D. in the fag end of her career. With the extension now granted, the first respondent had only two years left as on the date of granting leave to serve the institution with Ph.D., that too, in language. We are of the view that the Government committed a major mistake in granting leave with salary and allowances to a retiring College Lecturer to acquire Ph.D. as the same does not achieve the objective of the scheme of enriching the teacher with more specialised learning to improve coaching in the institution. Going by the ultimate decision we propose to take in this case, we do not propose to go into the age and other details of the second respondent. Needless to mention that the Government should grant facility of this kind only to relatively young faculty members so that at least they get 10 years period of service after completion of Ph.D. to serve the institution. Since everything is over in the case of respondents 1 and 2, that too, on the recommendation of UGC, we do not want to interfere with the extension of leave granted to respondents 1 and 2, particularly, when State has no financial loss in as much as the salary and allowances paid to the Lecturers in the leave vacancies were reimbursed by the UGC.