JUDGMENT : The petitioner who had worked as Lecturer in Tourism and Travel Management in Pazhassiraja College, Pulpally, managed by the 1st respondent herein, is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.8 relieving order issued by the 1st respondent Manager and for other consequential reliefs, including a declaration that she is entitled to be paid salary for the period, which she had actually worked from 17.08.2007 to 21.08.2008 and thereafter from 22.10.2008 to 17.12.2009. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to submit the proposal for approval of her appointment for the period from 22.10.2009 to 17.12.2009 to the 2nd respondent, the University of Calicut. 2. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are opposed by the 1st respondent by filing a counter affidavit. The 5th respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 3. I heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent Manager, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University and also learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 to 5. 4. The pleadings and materials on record would show that one Dr.M.R.Dileep, who was working as Lecturer in Tourism and Traval Management in Pazhassiraja College, Pulpally was sent on deputation for the period from 22.8.2003 to 21.03.2008. In the resultant vacancy, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by Ext.P1 order of appointment dated 16.08.2007. When the said Dr. Dileep was granted extension of time for the period from 22.10.2008 to 21.10.2009, the petitioner was permitted to continue in that vacancy, by way of re-appointment as Lecturer in Tourism and Travel Management, vide Ext.P1(a) order of appointment dated 21.10.2008. 5. By Ext.P2 order dated 06.11.2009, the 2nd respondent University granted approval for the temporary appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in Tourism and Travel Management for the period from 17.08.2007 to 21.08.2008 and thereafter, for the period from 22.10.2008 to 21.10.2009. While continuing in service as Lecturer, the petitioner applied for maternity leave for a period of six months with effect from 01.06.2009. However, by Ext.P3 memo dated 30.05.2009, the 1st respondent Manager granted maternity leave only for a period of 140 days, i.e., for the period from 01.06.2009 to 20.10.2009. 6. While continuing in service as Lecturer, the petitioner applied for maternity leave for a period of six months with effect from 01.06.2009. However, by Ext.P3 memo dated 30.05.2009, the 1st respondent Manager granted maternity leave only for a period of 140 days, i.e., for the period from 01.06.2009 to 20.10.2009. 6. According to the petitioner, though she was granted maternity leave vide Ext.P3 memo, a copy of the same was not furnished to her. As such, she was unaware of the condition stipulated therein to the effect that she should rejoin duty on 21.10.2009. Without noticing the said stipulation in Ext.P3 memo, the petitioner rejoined for duty on 30.11.2009. Though she was permitted to take class, she was informed that a formal order of appointment will be issued only after the Government issuing an order extending the period of deputation of Dr.M.R.Dileep. Therefore, the petitioner continued as Lecturer till 17.12.2009, i.e., till she got appointment as Lecturer in the Collegiate Education Service, based on an advise made by the Kerala Public Service Commission. 7. Claiming approval for the appointment from 21.10.2008 till 17.12.2009, the petitioner made Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the 1st respondent. In order to substantiate the fact that the petitioner had worked in the 1st respondent's College till 17.12.2009, she would rely on Ext.P6 Acceptance Certificate dated 15.12.2009 for Minor Research Project, which she had forwarded to the UGC. 8. By Ext.P6(a) order dated 24.02.2010, the Government extended the term of deputation of Dr.Dileep M.R. for a further period of two years from 22.10.2009. In spite of Ext. P6(a) order, the 1st respondent has not issued any formal order of re-appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, she made an application under the Right to Information Act and obtained Ext.P7 reply, in which it has been stated that she had not worked in the 1st respondent's College after March 2009. She has also received another information by Ext.P8, in which it has been stated that she had not rejoined duty on 21.10.2009 after the expiry of the maternity leave. The petitioner would rely on various documents in order to substantiate her contention that she had worked as Lecturer in the 1st respondent's College till 17.12.2009, the date of which she was relieved from service consequent to her appointment as Lecturer in Collegiate Education Department. 9. The petitioner would rely on various documents in order to substantiate her contention that she had worked as Lecturer in the 1st respondent's College till 17.12.2009, the date of which she was relieved from service consequent to her appointment as Lecturer in Collegiate Education Department. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is contended that, the petitioner returned to the College after maternity leave only on 30.11.2009, though in compliance of the condition stipulated in Ext.P3 memo, she should have rejoined duty on 21.10.2009. Accordingly, she was terminated from service with effect from 31.03.2009 for unauthorised absence. Regarding the said matter, the Director of Collegiate Education, the 4th respondent, has issued Ext.R1(b) instruction. Pursuant to Ext.R1(b), Ext.R1(c) notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2011, informing that her application could not be considered because she was on unauthorised absence from 31.03.2009. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, a further contention has also been taken to the effect that as per the Adalath of the Director of Collegiate Education, the workload for Tourism and Travel Management Department of Pazhassi Raja College, Pulpally is 40 hours. The number of teachers permissible are 2 and the number of teachers working are 3. Hence, there is an excess teacher in this department including Dr.Dileep. At that time, two teachers engaged 32 hours with a balance of 8 hours workload per week. As per the rule, the minimum requirement of workload per week is 9 for a fresh appointment. Hence, the 5th respondent has already sought a clarification from the higher authorities regarding the admissibility of the salary of the petitioner and is awaiting reply. 11. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced certain additional documents in order to substantiate her contention that she had worked as Lecturer in the 1st respondent's College till 17.12.2009. 12. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, with reference to the pleadings and materials on record, it has to be noticed that, as far as the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the 1st respondent's College for the period from 17.08.2007 to 21.08.2008 is concerned, the said appointment has already been approved by the 2nd respondent University, which is evident from Ext.P2 order. It is also not in dispute that, for the said period the petitioner had worked as Lecturer. It is also not in dispute that, for the said period the petitioner had worked as Lecturer. As such, she is legally entitled for salary and other benefits for the said period. Though the 5th respondent has raised a contention that there was no sufficient workload for the post held by the Dr.Dileep and as such, the petitioner is not legally entitled for payment of salary for the period from 17.08.2007 to 21.08.2008, I find no merit in the said contention, in view of the approval for such appointment granted by the 2nd respondent University vide Ext.P2 order. 13. As far as the approval for the second spell from 21.10.2008 to 17.12.2009 is concerned, it has to be noticed that by Ext.P1(a)order, the petitioner was re-engaged as Lecturer for the period from 21.10.2008 to 21.10.2009. It was while continuing as such, the petitioner applied for maternity leave for a period of six months with effect from 01.06.2009. However, it is evident from Ext.P3, the maternity leave was confined for a period of 140 days from 01.06.2009 to 20.10.2009. 14. Admittedly, going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner reported for duty only on 30.11.2009. If that be so, the absence of the petitioner from 20.10.2009 till 21.10.2009 can be treated as unauthorised absence. Relying on the documents placed on record, the 1st respondent Manager would contend that, since the petitioner was on unauthorised absence from 20.10.2009, her appointment was terminated with effect from 31.03.2009 and the said fact was intimated to the petitioner vide Ext.P8(a) relieving order dated 30.11.2009. However, it has to be noticed that in the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent Manager has no case that such termination of the petitioner was made after serving a notice on the petitioner to show cause for her alleged unauthorised absence. In the absence of any such procedure adopted by the 1st respondent Manager, the alleged termination of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2009 cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, it has to be concluded that, he petitioner continued on maternity leave till 21.10.2009 (the said date, Sunday) since by Ext.P3 she was granted maternity leave till 20.11.2009. If that be so, in view of the approval for the re-appointment granted by Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent University, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary and other benefits for her appointment, from 21.08.2009 till 21.10.2009. 15. If that be so, in view of the approval for the re-appointment granted by Ext.P2 order of the 2nd respondent University, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary and other benefits for her appointment, from 21.08.2009 till 21.10.2009. 15. The specific case on the petitioner is that on 30.11.2009, when she reported for duty in the 1st respondent's College, she was permitted to discharge the duties as a Lecturer in the Department of Tourism and Travel. However, she was not permitted to mark her attendance. She continued as such till 17.12.2009, the date on which she was relieved from that College on getting appointment based on the advise made by Kerala Public Service Commission. In order to substantiate the said contention, the petitioner would rely on various documents produced along with the writ petition. 16. The question as to whether the petitioner was as a matter of fact rejoined duty on 30.11.2009 and continued as such till 17.12.2009 is a dispute in question of fact which cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to substantiate the said claim before the competent authority, with reference to the relevant materials on record. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioner for approval of her appointment and disbursement of salary and other benefits for the period from 30.11.2009 to 17.12.2009 has to be decided by the competent authority, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 1st respondent Manager. 17. It has also to be noticed that, as evident from Ext.P6(a) Government Order dated 24.02.2010, the deputation of Dr.Dileep was extended for a further period of two years from 22.10.2009. If that be so, once the alleged termination of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2009 is found to be irregular, she will be entitled to continue in the said post for the period from 30.11.2009 till 17.12.2009, if as a matter of fact, she had actually discharged her duties as a Lecturer in the College of the 1st respondent Manager. 18. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 18. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. "(i) The 5th respondent shall disburse the salary and other benefits payable to the petitioner as Lecturer in Pazhassiraja College, Pulpally for the period from 17.08.2007 to 21.08.2008 and thereafter from 22.10.2008 to 21.10.2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. (ii) It is for the petitioner to make an appropriate request for approval of her appointment from 30.11.2009 till 17.12.2009, with supporting materials. If any such request is made, the 2nd respondent University shall consider the same, in the light of Ext.P6(a) Government Order and take an appropriate decision with notice to the petitioner and 1st respondent Manager. (iii) Based on such decision taken by the 2nd respondent University, the 5th respondent shall consider the entitlement of the petitioner for salary and other benefits for the period from 30.11.2009 till 17.12.2009." It is made clear that, once the 2nd respondent University grants approval for the re-appointment of the petitioner for the period from 30.11.2009 to 17.12.2009, it is for the 5th respondent to disburse salary and other benefits payable to the petitioner for the above spell as well, which shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such order issued by the 2nd respondent University.