IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26901 of 2005(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRINCIPAL, BISHOP MOORE COLLEGE, MAVELIKKARA. 690 110. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.SATHISH NINAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHADEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26901/2005 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS) NO.134/98/H.EDN. DTD.9/11/2008 ISSUED FROM HIGHER EDUCATION (B)DEPARTMENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.Ac.B3/NEW COURSES/98 DTD. 8/04/99 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.162/99/H.EDN. DTD. 6/12/99 ISSUED FROM HIGHER EDUCATION (B) DEPARTMENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.Ac.B3/02734/NEW COURSES/99 DTD. 25/3/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE WORK LOAD STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 FOR ENGLISH, MALAYALAM, HINDI, BOTANY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY SUBJECTS OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.36354/D1/04/H.EDN.DTD. 20/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 26901 of 2005-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Government, whereby the claim for salary to Guest Lecturers was rejected on the ground that the courses for which they were appointed, were sanctioned to the College without any additional financial commitment to Government. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: 2. The College is one affiliated to the University of Kerala and is covered by the Direct Payment Agreement. The Government by Ext.P1 granted approval for starting M.A. (English) course subject to the condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of the Government on this account. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the University granting provisional affiliation for the said course with a sanctioned strength of 15 students. By Ext.P3 the Government accorded sanction to the petitioner for starting B.Sc. (Biotechnology) during the year 1999-2000 subject to the condition that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose on any account and by Ext.P4 the University wpc 26901/2005 2 granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner for starting the said course with a sanctioned strength of 24 students. 3. At the time of sanctioning M.A. (English) course, in the English Department the sanctioned strength of teachers was 15, and at the time of sanctioning B.Sc. (Biotechnology), there were 12 number of teachers in the English Department, 5 number of teachers in Malayalam Department, 4 number of teachers in Hindi Department and 6 number of teachers in Botany Department. Ext.P5 is the statement of workload as on 1.11.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had to appoint Guest Lecturers considering the additional courses sanctioned. 4. Various grounds have been raised in the writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George (2009 (4) KHC 477), wherein this Court considered the question whether the additional courses sanctioned, could be reckoned or not for the purpose of considering the workload and approval of teachers on that basis. The impact of the condition provided in the Government Order while granting provisional affiliation to the course that there will not be any additional financial commitment on the part of the wpc 26901/2005 3 Government, was also considered and finally in para 23 it was held thus: “If this be the position, the University is bound to reckon the additional workload and consider the proposal of the college for approval of the appointments made, having regard to the provisions contained in Statute 16 of Chapter 45B of the University Statutes. Therefore, we cannot be find fault with the conclusion of the learned Judge that the Government was not justified in incorporating unilateral conditions in the order sanctioning the courses, in breach of the statutory Direct Payment Agreement and the provisions of the University Act and the Rules.” It is the submission of the petitioner that the said dictum will apply to the facts of this case also and therefore the Government may be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the above judgment. 5. In that view of the matter, to consider the impact of the above judgment by the Government, Ext.P6 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the first respondent to pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) wpc 26901/2005 4 kav/