REMADEVI Vs. CALICUT UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Lecturer in Vimala College, Trichur was relieved of her duties consequent to unauthorised absence. The order was challenged in appeal before the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal. By Ext. P11 judgment the Tribunal held the appeal not maintainable finding that the institution is administered by a minority community and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P3, P4 and P11 orders issued by the management.

(2.) Petitioner joined service on 14-10-1980 as Lecturer in Commerce. The appointment was duly approved by the University with effect from that date. While in employment she applied for leave from 1-6-1987 to 1-1-1989 which was sanctioned by the management. Thereafter she joined duty on 2-1-1989 and continued till the midsummer vacation of that year. She left for Abudabi to join her husband who is employed there. She could not join duty on the reopening of the College for the academic year 1989-90 due to rheumatoid arthritis. Leave on medical ground was applied for with necessary medical certificate from 1-6-1989 to 1-9-1989. Since she continued to be ill she requested for grant of leave for a further period from 1-9-1989 to 2-1-1990. In the meantime she was asked by the management to appear before a Board of Doctors at Trichur. A telegram sent to this effect was followed by a letter. Petitioner sent a reply explaining her difficulties to go over to Trichur on account of her illness. Thereafter the management informed petitioner by Ext. P3 that in case she did not rejoin duty they would be compelled to relieve her from service. Ext. P4 communication was since then received from the management informing her that she had been relieved from service.

(3.) On receipt of Exts. P3 and P4 petitioner's relatives at Trichur consulted a lawyer and an appeal was filed before the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal. Since there was a delay of 15 days the appeal was presented along with an application to condone delay. The appellate authority considered the maintainability of the appeal as a preliminary point and after hearing both sides held that the management is a minority religious institution and the appeal is therefore not maintainable. Hence the original petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3, P4 and P11 and a writ of mandamus directing second respondent to reinstate petitioner in service with back wages. A direction to first respondent, the University Appellate Tribunal to take up Exts. P5 and P6, the appeal and the application for condonation of delay and to dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law is also claimed.