AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.T. Arunan,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and have perused the records.
In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 09.5.2006 passed by the third respondent as well as the consequential order dated
09.6.2006 passed by the fourth respondent and also seeks for a direction to the respondents for permitting the petitioner to complete his Ph.D.
Course in the first respondent University.
The petitioner was working as a Scientist in the Central Institute for Research on Goats under the control of the second respondent. He
submitted that his application to do his Ph.D. Course in Meat Science and Technology in the first respondent University. His application was duly
forwarded and he wrote the Entrance Examination and got admission. Based upon the admission, he applied for study leave for undergoing the
said course.
The petitioner was granted study leave by the respondents 2 and 3 vide order dated 14.10.2005. It was stated that he should submit his six
monthly reports of his progress at work and studies through his guide and he should also submit the certificate of examination passed or special
course of study undertaken by him. Other than that, he was also informed that all other terms and conditions shall be in terms of the Agricultural
Research Service (A.R.S.) Study Rules and the letter dated 28.01.2004 issued by the Director (Personnel) of Indian Council for Agricultural
Research [for short, ''ICAR''], New Delhi. The petitioner, pursuant to the grant of study leave, joined the said course. The petitioner executed a
bond as requested by the respondents and also informed the respondents 2 and 3 about his joining the research course. He also submitted his first
six monthly report by a letter dated 18.4.2006.
It is stated that when he went on study leave, he did not complete the formalities prescribed in terms of the study leave Rules. Though he had
executed a service bond and also gave two sureties, there was no response from the petitioner with reference to the security of immovable
properties or a Fidelity Bond of an Insurance Company or a guarantee from a scheduled Bank. Therefore, it was contended that he was illegally
pursuing his studies and when this fact was brought to the notice, by an order dated 09.5.2006, the petitioner was informed that the grant of study
leave should be cancelled and he was directed to report for duty immediately. The petitioner sent an affidavit dated 06.6.2006 stating that he had
no assets of his own to give any security and, therefore, he gave a personal bond that he will rejoin his employer and serve for the betterment of the
institution.
In the meanwhile, the first respondent, upon receipt of the impugned order, directed the petitioner to comply with all the formalities for availing
the study leave. It is, at this juncture, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Notice of motion was ordered on 22.6.2006 and interim stay was
granted, which was subsequently extended. It was only when the respondents 2 and 3 filed a petition in M.P. No. 1 of 2007 to vacate the interim
order and when the same was listed, with the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing.
Mr. M.T. Arunan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that the leave Rules are governed by the Study Leave
Regulations 1991 framed under Bye-law 23 of the ICAR Society and Rule 7(2) reads as follows:
In addition to executing a bond as aforesaid the scientist shall have to provide two sureties when study leave is granted to him on full pay and one
surety when study leave is granted to him on half pay or no pay and give security of immovable property to the satisfaction of the organisation of a
Fidelity Bond of an Insurance Company or a guarantee by a Scheduled Bank. The sureties furnished should be acceptable to the organisation.
Where two sureties or one surety, as the case may be, provided by the scientist are those who are permanent scientists of the institution to which
the scientist belongs, the organisation may, in its discretion waive the additional requirement of getting security of immovable property or a Fidelity
Bond of an Insurance Company or a guarantee by a Scheduled Bank. The surety clause shall form part of the study leave bond and the persons
giving surety shall be liable to pay to the organisation the amount recoverable from the Scientist concerned on his failure to fulfil the obligations of
the bond.
He further submitted that when the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions, there was no question of continuing the study leave.
Per contra, Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner has given a personal bond as
he does not possess any immovable properties, he cannot be asked to do the impossible.
Considering the rival submission, it is noted that the petitioner was duly relieved to study in the first respondent University and he had also joined
the said University and has been pursuing ever since the date of joining, viz., 17.10.2005 and for more than 2-1/2 years, he had done his research
work. Even at the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner had undergone 9 months in the Ph.D. Course and he had two more years to go. At this
advanced stage, if he is asked to go back, the entire academic work will go waste for the benefit of no one. Even assuming that there was any
infraction in the leave Rules, the defect pointed out is only a minor one. The respondents, taking advantage of the same, cannot deny the leave
itself. In any event, when the petitioner is not in possession of any immovable properties and when he expressed his inability to give any Fidelity
Bond, but, however, has provided a personal bond, the respondents can always accept the same and regularise his leave. But recalling his service
at this stage, that too, for a minor infraction of the formality to be complied with under the Rule, is really unjustified. It is not as if the studies
undertaken by the petitioner is totally alien to the second respondent and if he comes back with the research experience, it will only enhance the
quality of work of the petitioner.
The contentions raised by the petitioner merit acceptance. Under these circumstances, the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in cancelling the
study leave granted to the petitioner is totally unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
The petitioner is permitted to complete his Ph.D. course in the first respondent University. But, however, the petitioner is directed to comply with
the undertaking given by him vide his affidavit dated 06.6.2006 to the second respondent in letter and spirit. However, the parties are directed to
bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.