JAMES AERTHAYIL FR Vs. THOMAS N K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An aided recognised private college, affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University, has filed this revision under Section 63(9) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, challenging the decision of the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, allowing an appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein, who was the Head of the Department of English in that college. The teacher made Ext. M1 application for leave dated 09/10/2006 seeking grant of commuted leave from the first week of November. The reason attributed for the request for commuted leave was medical grounds. As per Ext. M2 dated 01/11/2006, the request for commuted leave was refused. On 02/11/2006, he made Ext. M3(a) application for medical leave supported by Ext. M3(b) certificate, which is one issued in terms of Rule 117 in Part I KSR, which applies by virtue of Statute 42 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. The application was for 45 days of medical leave and the recommendation of the doctor was that the teacher needs rest from 06/11/2006 to 20/12/2006. After submitting that application on 02/11/2006, the teacher did not attend duty from 06/11/2006 to 20/12/2006.

(2.) In the allotted column for such purpose in Ext. M3(a) leave application, the Principal has recorded that the application is not recommended, though vivid reasons are not stated therein.

(3.) The teacher says that on 24/11/2006, he went over to the college, on getting information that the application for medical leave is not being sanctioned. Though he says so, he did not join duty then. We find that the Principal addressed Ext. M4 to the Manager, who is the competent authority to deal with leave applications, stating different reasons why the leave need not be granted. From Ext. M4, we find that the Principal took the stand that leave need not be sanctioned on account of different grounds. The leave sought for was, according to the Principal, in the midst of the prime period of the course in November-December and it was not advisable to let the Head of the Department of English, be away from the college. The Principal was of the view that there being a ban, at the relevant time, on appointment, even of guest lecturers, the college would not get a substitute. Not only that, he had also cautioned that substitute guest lecturers may not be available in the middle of a term. He also appeared to have been skeptical about the veracity of the certificate issued by the Medical Officer regarding the need for the teacher to go on leave on grounds referable to illness of 'Kattigraham' and 'Vathavikara'.