IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 22 of 2008(V) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12158/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 6 & 7: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 & 8: ------------------------------------------------------------- -- 1. SINDHU.P.KAUMA, LECTURER IN HINDI, ST.PETERS COLLEGE, KOLENCHERY, RESIDING AT KEEZHETHMATTAAM HOUSE, KANIAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VICE`CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SYNDICATE SUB COMMITTEE ON AFFILIATION, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERISTY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. ST.PETERS COLLEGE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. ST.PETERS COLLEGE TRUST, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. SINDHU T.I., H.S.S.T.GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAYIRUPPE, KOLENCHERRY. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R7 ADV.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN ADV.T.A.SHAJI ADV.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 22/2008 in W.P.(C).No. 12158/2004 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R The State seeks review of the judgment dated 22.8.2007 in W.P.(C).No.12158/2004. In that judgment, this Court directed respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition to see that the petitioner, who is a lecturer in an aided college, is paid salary and other service benefits in view of the approval granted by the University, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of that judgment. The contention taken in the review petition is that the Government does not accept the stand of the University that there is sufficient workload to approve the appointment of the petitioner in that writ petition. But that question is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George [2009 (4) KLT 972]. That decision and other earlier decisions of this Court lay down that if the Government has any objection regarding the approval granted by the University, they have to either take up the matter with the University for withdrawal of the approval of appointment or challenge the orders of the University appropriately. As long as the approval stands, the Government is bound to pay salary to the teacher. That being so, there is no merit in this review petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2