IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 22921 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HAMSA.E., LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, M.E.S. MAMPAD COLLEGE, MAMPAD P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 542 (S/O.ABOOBACKER E., AGED 28, EKIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KADANNAMANNA P.O., MANKADA (VIA), MALAPPURAM, PIN-679 324. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPALAM REP. BY REGISTRAR. 5. PRINCIPAL, M.E.S. MAMPAD COLLEGE, MAMPAD, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 22921 of 2010 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the appointment order bearing No.MES/AC/E/948/05 dated 9.2.09. Ext.P2 :- Copy of order No.GII/A3/1022/09 dated 27.10.09. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the order bearing No.D1-8308/09 dated 19.1.10. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the post adalath review held on 18.12.02. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.22921 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in M.E.S. Mampad College on 9.2.2009 in a retirement vacancy. The University of Calicut approved the appointment as per Ext.P2 Order dated 27.10.2009. As per Ext.P3, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education ordered to withhold the salary payable to the petitioner for “want of prior sanction of the Director of Collegiate Education”. The petitioner is not being paid salary in spite of the approval of his appointment. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “i. Call for records connecting Exts.P1 to P4 from the respondent concerned; ii. Call for Ext.P3 from 3rd respondent and issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the Note attached to Ext.P3; W.P.(C).No.22921 OF 2010 2 iii. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing 3rd respondent to countersign the resubmitted bill for November, 2009 of the petitioner and further bills as may be submitted. iv. Such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper; AND v. Award cost to the petitioner.” 3. The third respondent (Deputy Director of Collegiate Education) stated in the counter that the approval of appointment of the petitioner was accorded by the University without obtaining prior concurrence of the Government. It is also stated in the counter affidavit as follows: “It is submitted that this respondent that as per Letter No.B1/D1/2024/10 dated 20.09.2010, has requested the University of Calicut to inform whether the approval of appointment accorded to the petitioner was in order, i.e, whether there is any surplus staff in the Commerce Department of other colleges under MES Management. But, to the letter, no reply has been received from the University. This respondent had also requested the Principal of the college to send the statement of workload of Commerce Department and also the details of Teachers working in the other colleges of MES Management in W.P.(C).No.22921 OF 2010 3 order to ascertain whether there is any excess staff working there. But to this letter also, no reply has been received from the college.” 4. The endorsement on Ext.P3 withholding salary of the petitioner on the ground that the prior sanction of the Director of Collegiate Education was not obtained, is illegal and without jurisdiction, in the light of the decisions reported in Cherian Mathew v. Principal S.B.College, Changanassery (1998(2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355). 5. In Cherian Mathew's case, it was held that if the Government has any objection to the approval of appointment on the ground that there is no sufficient workload, their right was only to address the University. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that as revealed in the counter, the Government have resorted to such a method. W.P.(C).No.22921 OF 2010 4 6. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements mentioned above, the endorsement on Ext.P3 referred to above is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to get salary since his appointment was approved by the University. Therefore, there will be a direction to the third respondent to counter sign the resubmitted bill for November, 2009 and further bills that may be submitted. The third respondent shall counter sign the salary bills within two weeks from the date of production of the salary bills along with a certified copy of the judgment. The right of respondents 1 to 3 to approach the University as mentioned in Cherin Mathew's Case is reserved. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms