UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the applicant in OA No.180/134/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench has filed this original petition aggrieved by the dismissal of the original application filed by her challenging the order dtd. 21/3/2022 issued by the 4th respondent rejecting her request for extra ordinary leave for pursuing her studies to get a P.hD in Malayalam, citing acute shortage of Postal Assistants in the division as the reason.

(2.) In the original application, the Tribunal had earlier directed the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P11 representation before 1/4/2022, but the same was rejected by the third respondent stating that there was no appeal against the order rejecting the application for leave. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to CPMG, the second respondent and produced the same before the Tribunal in MA No. 180/285/2022, which was allowed and the Tribunal directed the second respondent to dispose Annexure A15 representation. The Tribunal also disposed the original application itself with a direction to consider her representation. The second respondent however, directed the Post Master General northern region to dispose the representation. Thereafter the petitioner again moved by filing MA No.180/348/2020 dtd. 13/5/2022 for further orders to correctly implement its earlier orders. The said MA was rejected as per order dtd. 17/5/2022. These orders of the Tribunal are under challenge before us.

(3.) As stated earlier, the consistent stand of the respondents was that there is acute shortage of staff and granting extra ordinary leave for 36 months to the petitioner would seriously affect the functioning of the office in which the petitioner is working. Since this was a case where the petitioner wanted to pursue her higher studies, we had requested the Standing Counsel for the Calicut University to get instructions as to whether the petitioner can pursue her studies on part time basis. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the first year of the course involves course work and that a full time registration may be converted to part time only on the completion of one year or when the candidate successfully completes the course work. We thereafter, directed the respondents to find out whether they were willing to give a leave for 12 months so as to enable the petitioner to pursue her higher studies. The respondents have filed an additional affidavit sticking on to their earlier stand stating that there is acute shortage and therefore the petitioner cannot be given leave even for 12 months. The respondents would contend that at present the staff strength of the Ottapalam Division is 55% indicating a shortage of 45%, and therefore, they are not in a position to spare the services of the petitioner.