IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 9314 of 2010(L) PETITIONERS: 1. JAYASUDHA S., LECTURER IN PHYSICS, M.G.COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GIRIJA NAIR, LECTURER IN PHYSICS, M.M.N.S.S COLLEGE,KOTTIAM,KOLLAM, BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA UNIVERSITY,REP BY ITS REGISTRAR. UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MANAGER,N.S.S.COLLEGES(SECRETARY,N.S.S COLLEGE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE),CHANGANASSERY, 6. THE PRINCIPAL, M.G.COLLEGE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 7. THE PRINCIPAL, M.M.N.S.S.COLLEGE, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R5 BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER SRI.P.GOPAL R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 11.11.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 11.11.2008 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE UNIVERSITY BY THE MANAGEMENT DATED 31.1.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 16.6.2009. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 8.1.2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 8.6.2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY BILL ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DATED 29.7.2009. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE GOVERNMENT DATED 22.10.2009. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK LOAD ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO THE M.G.COLLEGE. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK LOAD ASSESSMENT STATEMENT OF M.M.N.S.S. COLLEGE. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SECTION COMMITTEE DATED 16.9.2008. EXT.R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER OF SRI.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR FROM MMNSS COLLEGE, KOTTIYAM. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 9314 OF 2010 L ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The first petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in M.G.College, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P1 appointment order dated 11.11.2008. The second petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in M.M.N.S.S.College, Kottiam, Kollam, as per Ext.P2 order of appointment. The University of Kerala approved the proposal for appointment of the petitioners. The University assessed the workload and found that the petitioners could be duly appointed in the Colleges. 2. However, when the salary bills of the petitioners were prepared by the Principal and forwarded to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education for obtaining his counter signature, it was not countersigned by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in the case of the first petitioner and it was rejected by the Deputy Director in the case of the second petitioner. Rejection of the salary bill of the second petitioner was made as per Ext.P7 on the ground that the concurrence of the Government was not obtained and therefore, the claim could not be entertained. As per Ext.P8 letter dated 29.7.2009, W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010 :: 2 :: the Deputy Director directed the Principal (7th respondent) to send the proposal for approval of appointment of the second petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the appointment is approved by the University, the Government is not entitled to deny salary to the Lecturers. It is submitted that the issue is well settled by the decisions in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355) and in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College, Changanassery (1998 (2) KLT 144). In Shalini Rachel's case, it was held thus: “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 W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010 :: 3 :: salaries as to whether the post for which payment is claimed is in 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 S.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 case 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. W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010 :: 4 :: 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 interest while exercising powers statutorily conferred on them. Sub-s. (1) of S.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. S.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.” W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010 :: 5 :: 4. The decision of the Division Bench in Cherian Mathew's case was followed in Shalini Rachel's case. 5. In view of the binding decisions of the Division Bench, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was not justified in not honouring the salary bill of the second petitioner or in withholding the salary bill of the first petitioner. Ext.P7, to the extent it relates to the second petitioner, and Ext.P8 are accordingly quashed. The petitioners are entitled to get salary in view of the fact that their appointments were duly approved by the University. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education shall countersign the salary bills of the petitioners presented to him without raising any objection that prior concurrence of the Government was not obtained or on the ground of any workload or on any other ground which will go against the dictum laid down in Cherian Mathew's case and Shalini Rachel's case referred to above. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/