IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2230 of 2008() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5470/2008 Dated 29/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------ THE PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN WPC -------------------------- 1. SOPHIA K.PHILIP, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI. BABU VARGHESE GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2230 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Writ petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in Christian College, Chengannur under the first respondent. A scheme was introduced by the UGC for faculty improvement of the colleges in the State as can be seen from Ext.P9(a). Accordingly, writ petitioner was selected for Ph.D. fellowship under the 10th plan for the period from 16.12.2004 to 15.12.2006. By Exts.P2 and P2(a), UGC sanctioned the same and the Government allowed it on deputation basis. By Exts.P3 and P3(a), UGC granted extension by one year. A substitute was appointed and salary paid was also reimbursed. Thereafter, the petitioner who went on deputation as per the UGC scheme came back and rejoined duty. Meanwhile, for payment of salary, Government issued Ext.P7(a) asking the appellant to send a report excluding the name of the substitute teacher. Appellant who is the Principal of the College filed this appeal saying that he cannot submit a report excluding the substitute teacher who actually worked for the period and who was appointed as per the UGC norms. In the above circumstances, appellant can give a recommendation stating that the term of the W.A.2230/2008 2 substitute teacher who worked for the period was over and to issue a fresh order in alteration of Ext.P7(a). It is for the Government to consider the same. It is submitted that UGC has already paid the amount and the same is with the Principal. The Government is not at all affected in paying salary to the substitute teacher and the substitute teacher who actually worked is entitled to salary. That is a matter to be considered after submission of the recommendation by the Principal stating the name of the teachers etc. and also making it clear that substitute teacher who worked for the period of three years is entitled to salary and after the decision is taken, it is for the respondents to decide the matter finally as expeditiously as possible after hearing the petitioner. But, the Government cannot compel the Principal to select the writ petitioner excluding the name of the substitute teacher who actually worked during the period. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks