AHAMMEDKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in both these Writ Petitions are closely interlinked with one another. Pleadings and proceedings are being referred to as given in W.P. (C). No. 27463/2012, which has been filed by the manager of the Neerolpalam A.M.L.P. School and the leave substitute appointed by him in the vacancy resulted when the 3rd. respondent was permitted to go on leave without allowance, as sanctioned by the Government, for a period of 5 years. W.P. (C). No. 27762/2012 has been filed by the third respondent in the other case. The sequence of events as narrated by the Writ Petition shows that the third respondent, who was working as an Arabic teacher decided to go aboard and accordingly he submitted an application for leave without allowance. This was considered by the Government/the leave sanctioning authority under R.72 of Part-I K.S.R. and the same was sanctioned as per Ext. P1 order dated 23.12.2010 granting LWA for a period of 5 years from 5.1.2011 to 4.1.2016, enabling the third respondent to take up the employment aboard; subject to the conditions stipulated therein. On granting the leave the 3rd. respondent demitted the Office and went aboard. Considering the immediate requirement to place a substitute; lest it should adversely affect the career of the students at large, the first petitioner appointed the second petitioner in the said vacancy and she is continuing there. While so, due to some or other reason, the third respondent chose to return and he made Ext. P3 request before the Manager of the School to permit him to rejoin duty, after cancellation the unavailed portion of the leave. The Manager expressed his helplessness in view of the turn of events; particularly having filled up the vacancy by appointing a substitute who is the second petitioner and whose appointment was approved for a period of 5 years by the Departmental Authorities. This made the third respondent to approach the second respondent/A.E.O. by filing a complaint; pursuant to which Ext. P6 order was; issued by the A.E.O. on 29.10.2012, alerting the Manager that there was absolutely no the rhyme or reason for declining the permission leave sought for by the 3rd. respondent to rejoin duty; was having more than 10 years of the service and that he should be permitted to rejoin duty after causing the unavailed portion of leave cancelled. The said respondent also made an endorsement, as borne by Ext. P7, whereby the salary payable to the second petitioner (the concerned leave substitute) came to be rejected. The Manager and the substitute are thus before this Court by filing W.P. (C). No. 27463/2012, seeking to set aside Exts. P6 and. P7 and for such other relief's.

(2.) The acts and deeds on the part of the Manager paying only scant regards to the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities (produced as Ext. P7 in W.P. (C). No. 27762/2012, which is the same as the Ext. P6 in the other case) are under challenge in W.P. (C). No. 27762/2012 and the petitioner seeks to have Ext. P7 implemented, enabling him to rejoin duty and to have the salary disbursed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C). No. 27463/2012 seeks to place reliance on Ext. P4 Circular dated 26.4.1988 and Ext. P5 G.O. Dated 23.8.2012, contending that the 3rd. respondent is not at all entitled to rejoin duty before expiry of the LWA sanctioned for a period of 5 years. This is sought to be controverted from the part of the 3rd. respondent (who has filed the other Writ Petition) pointing out that Ext. P4 Circular is not applicable to the case in hand and further that, it is always open for the 3rd. respondent to have the unavailed portion of the leave cancelled and rejoin duty at any time. It is also contended that Ext. P5 Government Order sought to be relied on by the Manager is in respect of the persons who proceed on LWA before completion of probation, which is not applicable here, as the third respondent has already an approved service of more than 10 years.