Jyothi Damodar Lecturer vs Kerala University

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 to 4, in not permitting her to work as Lecturer in the Department of Physiology and paying her all salary and allowances as is admissible to the post, as also by the inaction on the part of the said respondents to regularise her period of absence from duty. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the Department of Physiology under the respondent institution with effect from 15.02.2005. Thereafter, by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 23.03.2006, she was promoted as a Lecturer. She thereafter continued to work in that post till 24.04.2011 when she applied for a study leave for a period of three years from 25.04.2011 to pursue the M.D. Course in Physiology. It is the case of the petitioner that, after completion of the course on 24.04.2014, she rejoined duty as Lecturer on 25.04.2014 but from 02.05.2014, she was not permitted to sign the attendance register while discharging her duties as Lecturer. She would point out that by Ext. P7 application dated 04.04.2014, she had applied for the issuance of a course completion certificate from the respondents so as to comply with the conditions in Ext. P4 order that granted her the study leave. To the said application preferred by the petitioner there was no reply forthcoming from the respondents. When, pursuant to repeated requests, no action was forthcoming from the respondents, she approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking the reliefs aforementioned.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner was granted leave for study purposes for three years commencing from 25.04.2011 but she did not pay the required fee as insisted by the respondent institution at the time of joining the course. It is also pointed out that after having availed the study leave, she did not actually complete the course and she had entered on leave which was not sanctioned, and thereby unauthorisedly absented herself during the course period. It is also pointed out that she did not eventually appear at the final examination for the M.D. Physiology Course in June, 2014, and did not remit the fee for the examination either. Essentially, the counter affidavits points out that the petitioner did not have the required attendance for the issuance of course completion certificate and it was under those circumstances that the course completion certificate was not issued to her. A reply affidavit has also been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent have been denied.

I have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. P.V. Surendranath, the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that in a connected W.P. (C). No. 20223 of 2012, filed by the petitioner challenging the insistence by the respondents of a higher fee than the one that was stipulated by the Fee Regulatory Committee, I had held that the respondent institution was not entitled to recover any higher amounts from the petitioner towards fees, than what was fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee for the said year. In view of the judgment of this Court in that writ petition, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the objection of the respondents, that the petitioner had not remitted the fee demanded by the respondent institution at the time of joining for the M.D. Course. The issue to be considered in the instant case is the legality of the actions of respondents 2 to 4 in denying the petitioner the benefit of rejoining the post of Lecturer, which she was holding prior to availing the study leave for pursuing the M.D. Course. In this connection, it is relevant to note that in Ext. P4 order of the respondents, that sanctioned the study leave to the petitioner, the period of study leave is mentioned as three years commencing from 25.04.2011. The only other stipulation in Ext. P4, with regard to the completion of the period of study leave, is a clause which states that when the petitioner rejoined duty immediately after the course she should produce the course completion certificate and only thereafter necessary entries would be made in her service book. The petitioner had admittedly, by Ext. P7 application dated 04.04.2014, approached the respondents for the issuance of a course completion certificate. No orders were passed on the said application or any communicated to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the petitioner rejoined duty as a Lecturer and also signed the attendance register from 25.04.2014 onwards. It was thereafter that, with effect from 02.05.2014, she was prevented from signing the attendance register by the respondents. No doubt, the respondents would now contend that the petitioner did not have the required attendance during the pursuit of her M.D. Course, for the issuance of a course completion certificate. In the absence of any formal communication from the respondents to the petitioner in that regard, at the time when the petitioner had admittedly approached them for the issuance of a course completion certificate, I am not in a position to determine whether the petitioner did have any attendance shortage, as pointed out by the respondents. While considering the entitlement of the petitioner to rejoin duty as a Lecturer on 25.04.2014, on which date she apparently rejoined duty and also signed the attendance register, I have to examine only the material available and communicated to the petitioner as on that date. Admittedly, as on that date, the respondents did not have a case that the petitioner had any attendance shortage. Under those circumstances, the rejoining of duty by the petitioner, on 25.04.2014, cannot be said to be illegal or improper, more so when the course completion certificate for which she had applied had not been issued to her by the respondents and no reasons were forthcoming by that time for the non-issuance of the Course Completion Certificate. I am of the view that the respondents cannot take advantage of their inaction so as to prevent the petitioner from continuing to discharge her duties as a Lecturer. If it is the case of the respondents that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had an attendance shortage during the pursuit of her M.D. Course, then it is for them to initiate appropriate proceedings, after notice to the petitioner, to deprive the petitioner of any benefit that may enure to her on account of the completion of the said course.

Resultantly, without prejudice to any action that the respondents may take against the petitioner as aforementioned, I allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Lecturer in the Department of Physiology, by treating her as having rejoined the Department of Physiology as a Lecturer, with effect from 25.04.2014, and further to pay her all salary and allowances as is admissible, from the said date.

The writ petition is allowed as above.