JOHN BOSCO, SECTION OFFICER, UNIVERSITY AND JACOB PHILIP, SECTION GRADE ASSISTANT Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 23246/2007. W.A. No. 2380/2009 is filed by respondents 5 and 6 and W.A. No. 2496/2009 is filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition. As the very same judgment is under challenge in these appeals, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) W .A. No. 2380/2009: This Writ Appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 6th respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade II in the Kerala University on 1.8.1988. She applied for leave for higher studies. The University granted the same by Ext.P1 order dated 30.1.1992 with effect from 1.2.1992 for a period of two years. The purpose of leave was shown as higher studies and the rule referred to in Ext.P1 for granting the leave was Rule 91 of Part I, Kerala Service Rules (for short "K.S.R."). While the 6th respondent was on leave, a gradation list of Assistants was published on 1.12.1992 and she was serial number 74 in it. Later, by Ext.P2 order dated 17.8.1993, she was promoted as Assistant Grade I. By Ext.P3 order dated 24.3.1994, the leave granted to the 6th respondent for higher studies was extended for a further period of one year with effect from 1.2.1994. Again, the rule cited for granting the leave under Ext.P3 was Rule 91 of Part I, K.S.R. It is submitted that the leave was again extended and finally she rejoined duty on 1.9.1996, after the leave period. While she was on leave, the University issued Ext.P6 order dated 30.10.1995, modifying the conditions, subject to which the leave was granted. The promotion granted to her as per Ext.P2 dated 17.8.1993 to the post of Assistant Grade I was also cancelled. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 order dated 30.10.1995 reads as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for the University submitted that though by Ext.P6, the conditions of grant of leave to the 6th respondent were modified on 30.10.1995 and her promotion to the post of Assistant Grade I was cancelled, she has chosen not to challenge it. She has never raised any objection against it. Her objection against her seniority position was raised for the first time only by Ext.P8 representation. A reading of Ext.P8 would show that she has not filed any representation earlier. If there was any such representation, the same would have been referred to in Ext.P8. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal has found that there was inordinate delay in raising her claim, based on the materials on record. In view of the above position, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition. It should have been dismissed without going into the merits of the case, it is submitted.