Long leave of aided school teachers should not exceed five years: Kerala High Court
Pointing out the regulation in the Kerala Education Rules, the court said that the teacher could be terminated if he/she does not re-join the service after a long leave of five years.
Pointing out the regulation in the Kerala Education Rules, the court said that the teacher could be terminated if he/she does not re-join the service after a long leave of five years.
Pointing out the regulation in the Kerala Education Rules, the court said that the teacher could be terminated if he/she does not re-join the service after a long leave of five years.
Kochi: The High Court has confirmed the maximum permissible long leave of aided school teachers as five years, citing the Kerala Education Rules.
Pointing out the regulation in the Kerala Education Rules, the court said that the teacher could be terminated if he/she does not re-join the service after a long leave of five years.
The division bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice CP Muhammad Niyas said this in the order dismissing the plea filed by Shaji P Joseph, a teacher at the AM LP School at Chengottur in Malappuram district.
The plaintiff had joined his wife abroad after taking a long leave of 5 years in 2005. In 2010, he extended the leave for five more years. Even though he asked for another extension in 2015, his request was rejected. He had then filed a lawsuit challenging this.
As per the Kerala Education Rules, government school teachers can avail long leave up to 20 years. The plaintiff argued that this is applicable for the aided school teachers too. (It has been reduced to 5 years as per the 2020 amendment).
Section 14A of chapter 56(4) in the Kerala Education Rules states that aided school teachers could be terminated if they do not re-join the service after a long leave of 5 years. The court noted that there is no need to asses the right of the person who do not join the service after the stipulated duration according to the regulation.
The court observed that there was nothing wrong in rejecting the plaintiff’s request for the extension of leave.