IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2570 of 2009 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34582/2008 DATED 30.9.2009) APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN WPC -------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------- 1. FR. JOHN JOSEPH, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN SYRIAC, S.B.COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE MANAGER, S.B.COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. ADV.SRI.BABU VARGHESE FOR R1 ADV.SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEF FOR R2 SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.NO.2570/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 17th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The skeletal facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following: The 1st respondent writ petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Syriac in the 2nd respondent's college in 1994. He was placed in the senior grade on 26.9.2000. Though the University approved the placement, the Government did not release salary to him. Various objections were taken and the University was moved for re-consideration of the same. But, finally, the University decided to stick to its stand and informed the Government that the approval granted to the 1st respondent's placement in the post of Senior Grade Lecturer with effect from 26.9.2000 is valid. The decision was communicated to the Government by the University in answer to WA No.2570/2009 - 2 - the Government's letter No.11530/F.3/07 dated 31.12.2008. The learned Single Judge noticing the above stand of the University, allowed the Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved by the view taken by the learned Judge, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 2. Various contentions are taken to attack the stand of the University. But, as long as the decision of the University stands, now it is settled position in law that the appellants are bound to respect the same. If the appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the University, which is adverse to them, they may work out their remedy, if any, available under law, against it. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P. Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.