1) Petitioner on completion of M .Sc. in Bio-Chemistry was employed on temporary basis as Demonstrator in Department of Bio-Chemistry of University of Kashmir for various spells of service w.e.f 26-4-1981 to 1-81. 4-4-1982to 11/82, 1-4-1983 to 11/83, 1-4-1384 to 11/84 and 6-1-1985 to 22-4-1985. Thereafter, on selection under rules she was appointed as Lecturer in the Department on 18-4-1985 (Annexure-P2) subject to ridder that she will have to complete her Ph.D. within a period of five years from the date of appointment order. This order was follow by confirmation order of December 1987 (Annexure P3), confirming her as such lecturer on completion of the probation period beginning from 22-4-86. Petitioner proceeded on earned leave from September 20, 1987 followed by half pay leave and leave with out pay. From para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is shown that 89 days earned leave and 40 days half pay leave has been sanctioned to her, but extra ordinary leave is not sanctioned. As petitioner in terms of appointment order was required to complete Ph.D. degree within five years, so she was on look to pursue the Doctorate Course and get the degree. After initial hick-ups, she ultimately got an opportunity to serve Bostan Dana Farbar Cancer Institute USA, affiliate to Institute of Harward Medical Institute, where she had the chance of getting herself admitted to Ph.D. course. However, the respondents in the meanwhile issued an order on 21-4-89 informing petitioner that in case she fails to join her duties by 15-6-89, her services shall stand automatically terminated. This termination order is impugned on number of grounds. It is alleged that without taking into consideration rule 39 Sub Rule 3 of leave rules of Kashmir University and without passing an order thereto, the termination notice could not have been issued more so when petitioner was on look out to complete the requirement of completing the course of Ph.D. a condition attached to her appointment order. Besides it is alleged that petitioner being permanent employee of University, her service cannot be terminated without a proper inquiry in compliance with provisions of Section 126 of J&K Constitution and parameters of Article 311 of the Fedral Constitution. 2) Reply has been filed. There is not much dispute about the facts stated. Mr. Besides it is alleged that petitioner being permanent employee of University, her service cannot be terminated without a proper inquiry in compliance with provisions of Section 126 of J&K Constitution and parameters of Article 311 of the Fedral Constitution. 2) Reply has been filed. There is not much dispute about the facts stated. Mr. Bazaz submits that the petitioner could not have been granted leave under Rule 39 of the Leave Rules of University of Kashmir, for the reason that the petitioner was not a teacher and had not three years service. Besides, the petitioner failed to resume duties, therefore, she was served impugned notice of termination. 3) Heard. 4) At the outset of Mr. Qadri tenders statement that the petitioner who is presently serving in United States, is not intending and has no intention to resume her duties as lecturer in Bio-Chemistry Department of Kashmir, University. This statement of Mr. Qadri is recorded and taken note of. However, Mr. Qadri submits that petitioners case for extra ordinary leave for three years could not have been brushed aside by the University and the respondents cannot get away by declining petitioners leave, for the reason that petitioner fulfills the criteria of having served the department for over three years before she accepted job outside India. Section 39(3) reads as under: - "39(3) A teacher in permanent employment may be granted extraordinary leave not exceeding 2 years at a time but this limit may be permitted upto 3 years if the leave is required for accepting job outside India provided the officer concerned has put in at least 3 years service in this University on the date of proceeding on leave. This leave may be combined with any other kind of leave but total absence form duty shall not exceed 5 years in all". 5) The word "teacher" should include Demonstrator as would be seen from the definition of teacher given in Section 2(J) of Kashmir University Act 1969 as reproduced in rejoinder affidavit on record. The teacher is defined to include interalia a Demonstrator who gives instructions on behalf of University in the teaching department of the University like Bio-Chemistry. 5) The word "teacher" should include Demonstrator as would be seen from the definition of teacher given in Section 2(J) of Kashmir University Act 1969 as reproduced in rejoinder affidavit on record. The teacher is defined to include interalia a Demonstrator who gives instructions on behalf of University in the teaching department of the University like Bio-Chemistry. So far as the service of three years for extra ordinary leave is provided by above Rule 39(3), the only precondition for eligibility is acceptance of job outside India and concerned teacher having put in atleast three years service in the University on the date he/ she proceeds on leave. The rule nowhere provides that service has to be specified and a particular one or of a particular type of nature. It does not in terms differentiate service put in substantively and adhoc service. Service here is defined and used in wider terms and the construction to be placed has to be so in absence of nature of service being defined by the Section. 6) Viewed thus the petitioner has the eligibility of being considered and granted the extra-ordinary leave for three years subject to other conditions provided in the rules. Not only so it appears that the University is fully alive to this position when in the impugned order while directing the petitioner to resume duty by the specified date or face automatic termination, it is provided - "... It may be mentioned here that the period spent on extraordinary leave will not be counted towards increments, seniority and pensionary benefits". 7. Obviously the University has also informed the petitioner that the period she has spent on extra ordinary leave will not be counted towards the benefits indicated thereto. The period spent is indicated as spent on extra ordinary leave. It is also seen that petitioner is a permanent employee of the University has been appointed through normal recruitment process on substantive post, has a right to be heard before her service is brought to an end. This can be done after following the law as laid down by Section 126 of the Constitution. Her services should have been terminated on proper inquiry which has not been done. Mere serving of notice for resuming duties by particular date and on default in resuming duties so intimated, the service to end, does not tantamount to inquiry. This is even fairly conceded by Mr. Her services should have been terminated on proper inquiry which has not been done. Mere serving of notice for resuming duties by particular date and on default in resuming duties so intimated, the service to end, does not tantamount to inquiry. This is even fairly conceded by Mr. Bazaz. Obviously impugned order is illegal, vitiated and bad. 8. In result the impugned order has to be quashed and a certiorari is issued by quashing order no. F3 (L-Bio-Chem-103) Adm. dated 21-4-89. Taking note of aforementioned statement of Mr. M.I. Qadri, the petitioner is not resuming duties, so that should be the end of the matter, so far as employee employer relationship between petitioner and University is concerned. 9. However, regarding the benefits if any to which she would be entitled on treatment of the period of three years as extraordinary leave, shall have to be determined. Competent authority/ University is directed to treat three years absence of petitioner on extraordinary leave in combination with other kinds of leave, subject to the ceiling limit of total absence not to exceed five years in all. Disposed of.