S JOSEPH SELVARAJ Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition initially seeking for a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation, dated 11.5.2010 for undergoing LL.B Course on regular study basis. In that representation, a copy of which is found enclosed in pages 8 to 10 of the typed set, the petitioner had stated that while he was working as an Assistant in the District Employment Office at Dharmapuri, he had applied for permission to join and study LL.B Course on regular mode during the academic year 2008-2009. THE third respondent had acknowledged his requisition on 12.03.2008, but no orders were passed on his requisition. THEreafter, he submitted a representation to the first and second respondents.

(2.) AT the time when the petitioner sought for permission, there was a move to fix an upper age limit of 30 years for getting entry into the admission to LL.B regular course from the academic year 2009-2010. Therefore, the petitioner's apprehension was that he will lose his seat because of non receipt of reply from the third respondent. The petitioner's ambition was to study LL.B regular course. Accordingly, he joined regular course during the year 2008-09. His date of joining course in Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Tirupathi in Andhra Pradesh was on 16.6.2008. Since none of the respondents had raised objections, the petitioner had presumed that there was no objection on their part and in fact, they had impliedly granted approval for doing the course. He had also applied Unearned leave on private affairs for undergoing the study of LL.B regular course. Since no formal orders were passed on his representation, he filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 11.4.2011. In the reply affidavit, it was claimed that the petitioner will be completing the course in June, 2011 and that the rejection order was antedated and communicated to the petitioner only on 1.8.2008. Even before the rejection order, the petitioner had joined the course. It was also stated that under the relevant rule, certain relaxation can be granted for grant of study leave and that even officers who are holding Group C post can go for study leave. It is also stated that there is no valid ground for rejecting the petitioner's request for study leave. THEre cannot be discrimination in the matter of getting permission for study leave being confined only to Group A and Group B posts.