JYOTHI DAMODAR LECTURER Vs. KERALA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 to 4, in not permitting her to work as Lecturer in the Department of Physiology and paying her all salary and allowances as is admissible to the post, as also by the inaction on the part of the said respondents to regularise her period of absence from duty. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the Department of Physiology under the respondent institution with effect from 15.02.2005. Thereafter, by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 23.03.2006, she was promoted as a Lecturer. She thereafter continued to work in that post till 24.04.2011 when she applied for a study leave for a period of three years from 25.04.2011 to pursue the M.D. Course in Physiology. It is the case of the petitioner that, after completion of the course on 24.04.2014, she rejoined duty as Lecturer on 25.04.2014 but from 02.05.2014, she was not permitted to sign the attendance register while discharging her duties as Lecturer. She would point out that by Ext. P7 application dated 04.04.2014, she had applied for the issuance of a course completion certificate from the respondents so as to comply with the conditions in Ext. P4 order that granted her the study leave. To the said application preferred by the petitioner there was no reply forthcoming from the respondents. When, pursuant to repeated requests, no action was forthcoming from the respondents, she approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking the reliefs aforementioned.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner was granted leave for study purposes for three years commencing from 25.04.2011 but she did not pay the required fee as insisted by the respondent institution at the time of joining the course. It is also pointed out that after having availed the study leave, she did not actually complete the course and she had entered on leave which was not sanctioned, and thereby unauthorisedly absented herself during the course period. It is also pointed out that she did not eventually appear at the final examination for the M.D. Physiology Course in June, 2014, and did not remit the fee for the examination either. Essentially, the counter affidavits points out that the petitioner did not have the required attendance for the issuance of course completion certificate and it was under those circumstances that the course completion certificate was not issued to her. A reply affidavit has also been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent have been denied.

(3.) I have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. P.V. Surendranath, the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.