IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 26062 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M.K.PRASANNA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M.MOHANAKRISHNAN, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. M.K.SATHEESAN, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. REENA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. DR.ASHA.K., LECTURER IN ENGLISH, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. MEENA SHANKER, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. NISHA NAMBIAR, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. WPC NO.26062/07 -2- 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCTION, O/O.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR. 4. THE MANAGER, N.S.S.COLLEGES, (SECRETARY N.S.S. COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE, CHANGANACHERRY-2). 5. THE PRINCIPAL, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY FOR R.3 SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) FOR R4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 26062 OF 2007 (C) ==================== Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that of the seven petitioners, petitioners 6 and 7 alone have surviving grievance to be adjudicated in this writ petition. 2. Petitioners 6 and 7 were appointed as Lecturers by Exts. P1(e) and P1(f) orders dated 28/1/2006. These orders show that they were appointed against vacancies which arose out of inter university transfer availed of by existing lecturers in the colleges. Their appointments were approved by Ext.P2 order dated 19/12/2006 issued by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently when the bills for their salary were submitted, that was returned by the 2nd respondent, requiring to resubmit the same along with prior sanction of the Government. 3. Thereupon the Principal of the College issued Ext.P5 letter to the Deputy Director inviting his attention to the judgment of this Court in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007(3) KLT 355) and informing that petitioners 6 and 7 were appointed against retirement/transfer vacancies and therefore the provisions of Section 62 of the Kannur University Act requiring prior sanction of the Government are WPC 26062/07 :2 : inapplicable. In the meantime, the Deputy Director sought clarification of the University and the University by Ext.R4(c) dated 28/11/2007 clarified that the approval of the appointment of petitioners 6 and 7 granted by Ext.P2 is in order. 4. Despite all this, salary was not paid and with that grievance, this writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P4 and to compell the 2nd respondent to grant concurrence to the proposal submitted by the Principal for claiming salary and to see that salary due to the petitioners are disbursed. 5. As already noticed, appointment by Exts. P1(e) and (f) were against vacancies which arose on account of transfer of the existing lecturers. This necessarily indicates that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed are sanctioned posts. The University has also approved the appointment of the petitioners by Ext.P2. The University has confirmed the correctness of its approval by Ext.R4(c) issued in response to the query raised in this behalf by the 2nd respondent. 6. It would appear from Ext.P4 that the ground on which the bills were returned is that the appointments were made without sanction of the Government as contemplated in Section 62 of the Kannur University Act. Section 62 provides that appointment to the posts eligible to receive salary WPC 26062/07 :3 : from the Government shall be made only against posts sanctioned by the Government or by such officers as may be authorised by the Government. As already noticed, petitioners were appointed against vacancies which arose out of transfer of the existing lecturers. This evidently indicates that their appointments were against sanctioned posts. If appointments are made against posts which are already sanctioned, Section 62 is inapplicable. This position has been clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007(3) KLT 355). 7. In the light of the law as laid down by the Division Bench as above and the approval granted by University, the objection raised by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P4 is clearly unsustainable particularly for the reason that the University has clarified the position by Ext.R4(c). For these reasons, Ext.P4 will stand quashed. The 2nd respondent shall grant concurrence to the proposal submitted by the Principal by Ext.P3 and for claiming salary and will ensure that the salary and the allowances are paid to the petitioners. Writ petition is allowed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp