IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18523 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JASMIN K.H., LECTURER IN LAW(PART TIME), FAROOK COLLEGE, FAROOK, CALICUT, (W/O.DR.P.M.MUBARAK PASHA, AGED 41, 'PETALINE', ADIVARAM, FAROOK COLLEGE). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE-673660 3. CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENJIPALAM, REP. BY REGISTRAR-673635 4. PRINCIPAL, FAROOK COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673632 ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN-R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18523 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in law (Part time) in Farook College, Calicut as per Ext.P1 order. The said appointment was effected from 19.7.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that she was appointed as early as on 19.7.2004, she is yet to get salary. As per Ext.P5, the third respondent intimated the petitioner regarding the fact that the Standing Committee of the Syndicate had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner for want of sanction from the first respondent. Though Ext.P6 review petition was filed, it was also rejected as is obvious from Ext.P7. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P5 and P7. 2. When this matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner limited the prayer to one for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation submitted by the fourth respondent before the first respondent pointing out the fact W.P.(C) NO.18523/2010 2 that going by the staff pattern and workload, the appointment of the petitioner was in order. According to the petitioner, the non-disposal of the said representation is the root cause for her present plight. 3. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner was appointed as early as on 19.7.2004 and reminders to Ext.P4 are also pending before the first respondent, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc The words “Ext.P4” occurring in lines 2 and 4 of paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 27.07.2010 in W.P.(C) 18523/10 are corrected and substituted with “Ext.P3”, vide order dated 10.02.2011 in I.A 1808/2011 in W.P.(C) 18523/10. sd/- Registrar (judicial) W.P.(C) NO.18523/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18523/2010 4