IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22988 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 560. 2. FRANCIS C.T, LECTURER, SENIOR SCALE, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, PIN 685 589. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, PIN 685 589. 4. THE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE, MOOLAMATTOM, PIN 685 589. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON K. JOHN FOR R2 SMT.LAYA FRANCIS FOR R2 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 22988/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.AC.BV/2/890/2005 DATED 19.8.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1/262/04-05 DATED 5.9.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.NO.171/99/H.EDN. DATED 21.12.1999. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.209/96/H.EDN. DATED 24.12.1996. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE WRIT APPEAL NO.470/2008 BY JUDGMENT DATED 16.6.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE WRIT APPEAL NO.710/09 JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY IN IDENTICAL CASES DATED 27.1.2006. EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY IN IDENTICAL CASES DATED 7.7.2007. EXT.R2(c) : COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 19.12.2005. EXT.R2(d) : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.17993/D3/98/H.EDN. DATED 28.5.1999. EXT.R2(e) : COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 14.1.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22988 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed by the State challenging Exhibit P1 order dated 19.8.2005 issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University approving provisionally the promotion of Francis.C.T., the second respondent, as Lecturer in Commerce, St.Joseph's College, Moolamattom. Exhibit P1 order reads as follows : “The Syndicate Sub-Committee on Affiliation at its meeting held on 2.7.2005 has resolved to approve provisionally the promotion of Sri.C.T.Francis, Lecturer in Commerce, St.Joseph's College, Moolamattom as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 6.7.2001 F.N. It is also resolved to fix his pay at Rs.10,000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15200 with effect from 6.7.2001 and the normal date of next increment is 01.07.2002.” 2. The second respondent filed Writ Petition No.34367 of 2007 alleging that in spite of the approval of his WPC No.22988/2010 2 promotion, salary was not disbursed to him. The learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C) No.34367 of 2007. The State and two others filed W.A.No.710 of 2009 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal by Exhibit P6 judgment dated 7.1.2010. The Division Bench categorically held that once the University approves the appointment or placement of a teacher in a private college, where there is direct payment system, the Director of Collegiate Education is bound to release the salary. Exhibit P1 order dated 19.8.2005 was marked as Exhibit P2 in W.P.(C) No.34367 of 2007. The contention of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that in another Writ Appeal between the State and some other parties, the Division Bench in Exhibit P5 judgment dated 16th June 2008, had taken the view that for the purpose of placement in the senior scale under the UGC scheme, G.O.(P) No.171/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999 will apply and therefore, the past service of the incumbent for a period of less than one year in duration cannot be reckoned for the purpose of placement. Exhibit P5 judgment would have been relevant had it WPC No.22988/2010 3 been placed before the Division Bench while disposing of Writ Appeal No.710 of 2009. But that was not apparently done and as between the parties, the Division Bench rendered Exhibit P6 judgment. That judgment cannot be set at naught by filing another Writ Petition, relying on an earlier judgment of the Division Bench which was not inter parties. The judgment rendered inter parties would be binding on both the parties in preference to a decision to the contrary rendered either before or after the inter party judgment. If the appellants are aggrieved by Exhibit P6 judgment, their remedy is to challenge the same in accordance with law. The principles of resjudicata are applicable to the proceedings under Section 226 of the Constitution as well, as held by the Supreme Court in several decisions. The binding nature of the inter party judgment cannot be effaced by a second round of litigation by a party to the earlier litigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is not maintainable at all. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl