BALDEV SINGH Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed praying for directions to quash the order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure P-5), by which the office of the petitioner as Technician Grade-D has been declared as vacant as also the order dated 03.10.2006 (Annexure P-14) by which the appeal of the petitioner against that order has been rejected by the Executive Council of the respondent University. It is further prayed that the petitioner be directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was a regular/confirmed employee of the Kurukshetra University having been confirmed as Technician 'D' w.e.f. 27.11.1990 (Annexure P-1). He applied for a job in Canada through Kurukshetra University, for which he was selected. On his request, the Vice Chancellor of the University sanctioned him one year extraordinary leave without pay vide letter dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure P-2). It was a condition in the letter that no further extension in leave would be allowed and that he would have to return to the University immediately on expiry of the leave. An undertaking by way of an affidavit was required to be given before proceeding on leave. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted requisite affidavit as required and after being relieved on 26.03.2002 (A/N) immediately proceeded to Canada.

(3.) While there one relative of his from India, informed him that the affidavit submitted by him was not properly worded. Immediately, the petitioner forwarded another affidavit alongwith his letter dated 11.08.2002 to the Vice Chancellor (Annexure P-3) stating that he would re-join duty as per the terms of the letter dated 26th March, 2002 and would not seek extension of leave. Sometime thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 7.11.2002 (Annexure P-4) from the Assistant Registrar stating that the application of the petitioner dated 11.8.2002 for grant of extension in Extraordinary Leave (without pay) could not be accepted in view of the fact that, for his failure to comply with the directions in the letter dated 3.5.2002, whereby he had been intimated that his leave had been cancelled and he had been asked to rejoin within one month, his office had already been declared vacant vide order dated 25.7.2002. A photocopy of letter dated 25.7.2002 was also enclosed.