IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3044 of 2008(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- KANCHI MATHEW K., LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, BAM COLLEGE, THURUTHICADU P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. PRINCIPAL, B.A.M. COLLEGE, THURUTHICADU P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE SRI. T.A. SHAJI- SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.3044 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The University Grants Commission has introduced a Scheme for faculty improvement of Colleges in Kerala as per which existing Lecturers in Colleges are sent on deputation under a Faculty Improvement Programme for under going M.Phil and Ph.D courses. The teachers so sent on deputation for undergoing courses would be eligible for salary they were drawing in the post in which they are continuing. The Colleges are allowed to appoint substitute teachers in their place for payment of salary of whom are reimbursed by the UGC. 2. In this case, the petitioner is a substitute teacher appointed in the vacancy in which a regular teacher has been sent for higher studies under the Faculty Improvement Programme. She complains that although her appointment has also been approved by the University, she is not being paid salary. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(c) No.3044/08 2 “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibits P4, P4(a); ii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to get salary for the period which she had worked, in light of Exhibit P2 University Approval and Exhibit P3 U.G.C. Sanction. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding respondents 4 and 5 to disburse salary to the petitioner for the period which she had worked ie., from 14.11.2005 to 15.8.2006 in the light of Exhibit P2 approval, with immediate effect. iv) Award costs and interest for the delayed payment”. 3. The 5th respondent opposes the prayers of the petitioner. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner is an excess teacher. He submits that the workload in the College does not justify appointment of the petitioner as an additional teacher. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner is a substitute teacher appointed in the place of a teacher, who has gone on deputation under the Faculty Improvement Programme of the UGC. It is also not disputed before me that, that teacher, who has been sent on deputation, is being paid salary in the post in which she has been appointed. It is also not disputed before W.P.(c) No.3044/08 3 me that the UGC has forwarded to the Principal of the College the amount to be paid as salary to the substitute teacher appointed in the place of the original teacher. In such situation I am at a total loss to understand how the 5th respondent can take a stand that the petitioner is an excess teacher and therefore she cannot be paid salary. I am of opinion that as long as the original teacher, who has been sent on deputation under the Faculty Improvement Programme, is being paid salary and the salary payable to the substitute teacher is being reimbursed by the UGC, the petitioner cannot be denied salary as a substitute teacher. Entitlement of the petitioner for such payment is supported by Ext.P8(a) and Ext.P9 orders of the Government and the Director of Collegiate Education respectively on the subject. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to disburse the salary as allowable to the petitioner for the period she had worked and continue to pay salary to her as long as the original teacher in whose place she has been appointed, is drawing salary and the UGC is reimbursing amounts payable as salary to the petitioner. The arrears shall be paid within a period of one W.P.(c) No.3044/08 4 month from today. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd