Kerala Service Rules | Govt Cannot Summarily Reject Employees' Leave Application Under Rule 91A For Pursuing PhD: High Court

Questioning the government's decision to not grant leave to its employees under Rule 91A of Part I Of Kerala Service Rules for pursuing PhD, the Kerala High Court on Monday said the State cannot summarily reject a leave application for Doctoral or Postdoctoral Research.

Justice Devan Ramachandran rejected the government's argument that a general decision has been taken to not extend leave under Rule 91A to PhD candidates.

Referring to the Secretary, Higher Education Department and Others v. V.R.Rajalakshmi and Others, the court reiterated that the government is first required to consider the academic record and potential of the candidate to accomplish the PhD within the promised time frame and then only take a decision.

"It is thus apodictic that, in V.R.Rajalakshmi, this Court has made it ineluctably clear that the application of a candidate cannot be rejected summarily because what has been sought for is LWA for the purpose of Doctoral or Post Doctoral Research. The only discretion given to the Government is, based on his/her credentials and educational achievements, to verify whether he/she is likely to accomplish the commitment within the time frame; and if a satisfaction to the contrary is validly recorded, then to reject it, citing such reasons".

The court made the observations in its decision on a petition filed by Gisha Marin Jose, who had applied for leave before the Centre for Continuing Education and College of Engineering, Munnar, under the provisions of Rule 91A of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules for pursuing PhD, but was allowed only as leave without allowances.

Jose's counsel asserted that the rejection was "illegal and untenable" because, going by Rule 91A, "if a candidate is able to establish that the proposed course is for the benefit of the State, then there can be no inhibition in granting the same under its purlieus."

The court was informed that the sole reason given by the government in the impugned order is that they had taken a policy decision not to grant leave under Rule 91A of Part I KSR for the purpose of Doctoral or Postdoctoral Research. It was also argued that the decision is against the principle laid down by the High Court in Secretary, Higher Education Department and Others v. V.R.Rajalakshmi and Others.

Government Pleader Advocate Parvathy Kottol, submitted that the impugned order is based on the general decision of the government to not extend LWA under Rule 91A for the pursuing PhD, and it is within the power of the Government to do so.

Observing that court cannot offer imprimatur to the State' stand in Jose's case, the court said the sole reason stated by the Government in rejecting her application is that "no such can be granted for Ph.D Research or Post-Doctoral Research, since it is not a time bound course, which culminates in a public examination."

"It is needless to say that this runs antipodean to the declaration of law by this Court in V.R.Rajalakshmi (supra); and I am, therefore, of the firm view that impugned orders are deserving to be set aside and Government must be directed to reconsider the matter, adverting to the afore binding precedent," Justice Ramachandran said.

The Court, thereby, set aside the impugned order and directed the government to reconsider the petitioner's application for leave, under the ambit of Rule 91A of Part I 'KSR', after affording her an opportunity of being heard and of producing all relevant documents to prove her credentials and academic accomplishments. The government has been ordered to pass an appropriate order within two months.

Advocates O.A. Nuriya, Revathy P. Manoharan, Asheek Antony and Nebil Nizar appeared for the Petitioner. 

Case Title: Gisha Marin Jose v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 586

Click Here To Read/Download The Order