IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12026 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MANOJ.K., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, LECTURER, DEPT. OF HISTORY, M.S.M. COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. *4. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (*Address of R4 is corrected.) 4. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Address of R4 is corrected by deleting University of Calicut from the party array as per order dated 23.06.2008 in I.A. 7734 OF 2008.) 5. THE MANAGER-CUM-SECRETARY, M.S.M. TRUST, KAYAMKULAM, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN CODE-690 502. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, MILAD-E-SHERIEF MEMORIAL COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. T.B. REMANY. R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12026 of 2008(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.G1/1707/TS/04 DATED 06.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. Ac.F.I/003041/06 DATED 30.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.Ac.F.I/801371/08 DATED 07.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FOR RE-ASSESSEMTN OF WORK-LOAD OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT COLLEGE DATED 18.12.2002 PREPARED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. F1/2553/08 DATED 04.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.01.2007 PASSED IN W.P.(C) 12109 OF 2006. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 21.06.2007 PASSED IN W.A. 940 OF 2007. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.08.2007 PASSED IN W.P.(C) 24400 OF 2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 12026 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 7th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Lecturer in History in M.S.M. College, Kayamkulam. The petitioner was initially appointed in the leave vacancy of Shri Shaik Ahammed K.M. and appointment of the petitioner in the said leave vacancy was approved by the University as per Ext. P2 order dated 30.11.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to a permanent existing vacancy which arose due to the relieving of Suraj from the Department of History as on 01.02.2008. The University duly approved the appointment of the petitioner in the permanent vacancy as per Ext.P3 order dated 07.03.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after Ext.P3 order of approval passed by the University, his salary is not being paid. As per Exhibit P5 letter dated 04.04.2008, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education informed the Principal of the College that there was no concurrence by the Government for the appointment of the petitioner. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to counter-sign and pass salary/arrears bill and disburse the salary and other amounts due to the petitioner. There is also a prayer for a declaration W.P.(C) No. 12026 OF 2008 2 that the petitioner is entitled to get monthly salary and resultant arrears on account of his appointment to the post of Lecturer with effect from the date of appointment approved by Exhibits P2 and P3 orders. 2. In Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College, Changanacherry (1998 (2) KLT 144) it was held that once the University approves the appointment of Lecturers, the Government is bound to honour the salary bills. That decision was followed in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355) (W.A.No.940/2007 and connected cases) by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, in the above cited decision, held as follows:- “9. We are of the view, above mentioned provisions of the University Act, Statutes and Ordinances would clearly indicate that it is for the University to sanction the post as per clause (3) of Statute 14 of the Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 in the case of private colleges coming under the Direct Payment Scheme, depending upon the work load and staff pattern fixed by the University. Once University accords sanction of a post and grants approval depending upon the work load and staff pattern, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education shall verify before making direct payment of salaries as to whether the post for which payment is claimed is in W.P.(C) No. 12026 OF 2008 3 accordance with the staff pattern and workload fixed by the University. If the University grants approval noticing that it is in accordance with the staff pattern and work load fixed by it the Director of Collegiate Education or the officers concerned are obliged to make payment of salary as per the direct payment scheme. 10. Scope of Section 57(2) of the Kerala University Act has to be tested in the light of the above mentioned statutory provisions. Power of the University in granting approval as well as sanctioning posts after ascertaining the work load and fixation of staff pattern as per the Statutes has not been taken away by the University Amendment Act 2 of 2005. Clear cut provisions have been made in the University Statutes and Ordinances as to how the work load has to be assessed and staff strength fixed so as to avoid unnecessary appointments. Further the interest of the students is also to be safeguarded by appointing sufficient number of teachers without delay. Power is also conferred on the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter with the University in cases there is any doubt with the approval granted. In appropriate cases Government can also examine the action taken by the Deputy Director and address the University through him. 11. We have no reason to think that an august body like Syndicate or the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education would act arbitrarily or against public W.P.(C) No. 12026 OF 2008 4 interest while exercising powers statutorily conferred on them. Sub-section (1) of Section 57 only says that appointments to the posts eligible to receive salary from the Government shall be made only after getting prior sanction from or from such officers authorised by the Government. For filling up the posts sanctioned by the University on the basis of work load or staff pattern, no prior permission of the Government is necessary. Once Syndicate of the University grants approval for filling up the existing vacancies depending upon the workload and staff pattern Government is obliged to pay salary of the teachers appointed by duly constituted Selection Committee. If Government or its officers find that the approval was granted by the University illegally it can always take up the matter before the University or other forums so that public interest will not suffer. Section 57(1) was introduced not to take away the statutory powers already conferred on the Syndicate of the University. Principle laid down in Cherian Mathew's case supra in our view, still holds good. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to affirm the judgment of the learned single judge in W.P.C.No.12109 of 2006 and dismiss W.A.No.940 of 2007.” In view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court, the stand taken by the third respondent, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in Ext.P5 letter dated 04.04.2008 is unsustainable. The petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is W.P.(C) No. 12026 OF 2008 5 accordingly allowed. The third respondent shall counter-sign the salary/arrears bill and take all necessary steps for the disbursement of salary/arrears of salary to the petitioner forthwith. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the disposal of this Writ Petition should not stand in the way of the Government to exercise the right to address the University in case the appointment was not in conformity with the statutory provisions, as held in Cherian Mathew's case (supra). It is made clear that the disposal of this Writ Petition would not stand in the way of the Government in exercising the right as stated in Cherian Mathew's case. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk