(1.) In this appeal under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), judgement of learned single Judge dismissing Original Petition filed by appellant is questioned. Removal of appellant from employment as done by the C.M.C. Educational Society (hereinafter referred to as 'management') was held to be legal by learned single Judge.
(2.) Background facts are undisputed and a brief reference thereto would suffice. Appellant was working as a Lecturer in Vimala College, Thrissur. Because of unauthorised absence, she was relieved on her duties. That order was challenged in appeal before Calicut University Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal'). Appeal was not entertained with the finding that institution is administered by a minority community and as such Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. In Original Petition, order of removal from service as well as that of Tribunal holding that appeal was not maintainable came under challenge.
(3.) Appellant joined service as a Lecturer in Commerce on 14.10.1980. Her appointment was approved by the Calicut University (in short 'University') with effect from 14.10.1980. While in employment, she applied for leave from 1.6.1987 to 1.1.1989 which was sanctioned by management. She joined duty on 2.1.1989 and continued till mid summer vacation of that year. She left for Abudhabi to join her husband, who is employed there. She did not join duty on reopening of college for academic year 1989-90. Leave on medical ground was applied for, with a medical certificate, from 1.6.1989 to 1.9.1989. Leave for a further period from 1.9.1989 to 2.1.1990 was again applied for. Management asked her to appear before a board of doctors at Thrissur to test correctness of her claim regarding ailment. Intimation was sent telegraphically followed by a confirmatory letter. Appellant sent a reply stating her difficulties to go over to Thrissur on account of her illness. Management informed her by letter dated 6.9.1989 (Ext. P3) that if she did not rejoin duty, it would be compelled to relieve her from service. Subsequently, by letter dated 31.10.1989 (Ext. P4), she was informed that she had been relieved from service. On receipt of Exts. P3 and P4, appeal was preferred by her before Tribunal. As there was delay in presentation of appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. Tribunal considered maintainability of appeal as preliminary point and held that management being a minority institution, appeal was not maintainable. Thereafter, Writ Petition was filed.