IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 1210 of 2009(W) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23720/2008 Dated 19/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER 1 & 2 ------------------------------------ 1. JESVIN JOSE, LECTURER IN COMMERCE, CO-OPERATIVE ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MADAYI, KANNUR. 2. SOJI M, SEBASTIAN, LACTURER IN COMMERCE, CO-OPERATIVE ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MADAYIL KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN WP(C) ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIATRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR. 5. THE MANAGER, CO-OPERATIVE ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MADAYIL, KANNUR (PRESIDENT , PAYYANNUR CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY LTD., NO. C. 853, PAYYANNUR). 6. THE PRINCIPAL, CO-OPERATIVE ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, MADAYI, KANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MUHAMOOD T.T R4 BY ADV. MR.M.SASEENDRAN, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1210/2009 in W.P.(C) No.23720 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Notice taken by the learned Govt. Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the University. 2. The prayer in the review petition is to a limited extent. Petitioners 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. They have been working as Lecturers in Commerce in the Co-operative Arts and Science College. In the writ petition, they sought for a direction for disbursal of salary. With regard to the claim of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, this Court found that the degree course in B.Com was sanctioned with a specific condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of the Government and going by the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.2529/2005 and connected cases, the conditions imposed by the Government have to be treated as valid. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment in W.A. No.2529/2005 has been reviewed as per order in R.P.Nos.101/2008 and 180/2008 and the Writ Appeal has been disposed of rp 1210/2009 2 afresh going by the decision in State of Kerala v. Arun George and others (2009 (4) KHC 477). It is submitted that in the light of the said decision, the workload which has arisen by sanctioning of the new course, will have to be reckoned for the purpose of approving the appointment of the petitioners and granting salary. 3. In fact, in para 6 of the impugned judgment, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a review petition is pending, has been noticed. Since the judgment in W.A. No.2529/2005 stands reversed, the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit granted by the said judgment. Therein, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed and the legal position has been declared in para 22 as follows: “In our view an argument against the above conclusion of ours, cannot even be raised by the Government for the reason that till this issue was raised, the Government and the University conducted themselves on the basis that the courses in question are aided courses. Otherwise, statutory selection committees applicable to aided colleges would not have been constituted with the participation of the representative of the Government and the University for selecting and appointing the lecturers including Respondents 1 to 7, and for the courses sanctioned as per Exts.P2 and P2(a), admissions would have been made in the manner as provided in the Direct Payment Agreement, fee would not have rp 1210/2009 3 been collected at the rate applicable to aided courses, fee would not have been remitted in the Treasury as provided in the Direct Payment Agreement and remittance in the Treasury would not have been accepted but for the fact it was payable under the Direct Payment Agreement. Therefore, the Government and the University also had accepted that the courses in question are aided courses. Having done all these, there is no merit or grace in the offer now made by the learned Government Pleader that they are willing to refund the fee remitted by the Management.” In para 23, it was held that “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.” 4. It is clear from Exts.P2 and P3 that the appointments have been approved already. In the light of the above, the review petition is allowed. The judgment rendered on 18.6.2009 will stand modified. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled for payment of salary in terms of the approval granted. Ext.P8 is therefore quashed. There will be a direction to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, the third respondent herein to honour the salary bills forwarded by the Principal in respect of the petitioners and the payment of salary including arrears, will be effected within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this rp 1210/2009 4 order. The direction to the 5th respondent to pay salary to the petitioners herein, is vacated. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ rp 1210/2009 5