K SUBRAMANYAM REDDY DR Vs. VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has invoked the letters patent power of this Court and appealed against the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the Court has declined to set aside the Order No. E.11-1/92 dated 9-12-1992 of the 2nd respondent, the Vice-Chancellor of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi and to issue directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner-appellant to rejoin in the post of lecturer in Chemistry in Sri Venkateswara University College of Arts and Sciences.

(2.) Facts relevant for the issues involved in the appeal are that with his qualifications in Physical Chemistry and teaching experience the petitioner was appointed as lecturer by the order dated 31-1-1982 of the first respondent and was placed on probation for a period of two years in which post he was later confirmed. He got, according to him, Post-doctoral position in the department of Chemistry, EPEL, CH-1015, Lausaane, Switzerland, and applied for study leave. The Executive Council of the University granted the study leave to the appellant and released him to take up his post-doctoral studies in Switzerland on 16-8-1989. While in Switzerland the appellant sought extension and the Executive Council of the University extended the appellants leave for one more year from 17-8-1990. The appellant sought one more extension and he got another extension for ten more months from 7-8-1991 to 30-6-1992. According to the appellant, his research work was still continuing and it was in final stages and he requested the University by letter dated 10-1-1992 to extend the study leave for one year after June, 1992 i.e. from July, 1992 to June, 1993. It seems and there is no dispute to the fact that the Vice-Chancellor (2nd respondent) turned down the appellant's request and the University wrote to him accordingly to re-join duty on 1-7-1992. The appellant, however, who was still busy in the project wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 23-3-1992 requesting him to reconsider his request for sanctioning the study leave for some more time. The first respondent, however, communicated to the appellant the proceedings of the second respondent (Vice Chancellor) dated 9-12-1992; the communication is as follows:

(3.) The appellant continued his efforts to communicate to the University that he was likely to complete his work or, in any case, was willing to join his duty, but received no response from the respondents on his return to India and rinding that he no longer had any appointment with the University, he moved this Court. The Court's judgment, however, has gone against the appellant on grounds of delay in moving the Court saying.