IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26754 of 2007(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CELINE JOSEPH, W/O JOSEPH T.D., LECTURER SELECTION GRADE, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, B.K.COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, AMALAGIRI, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI, R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UTY., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26754/2007-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO: A.C. BV-1-217-2000 DTD. 05/08/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO:A.C.BV/1/789/2005 DTD. 20/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UUNIVERSITY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO:176/2005-2006 DTD. 15/07/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/05/2006 FROM THE PRINCIPAL B.K. COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, AMALAGIRI, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO:209/96/G. EDN. DTD. 24/12/96. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO:AC.B.V-1-798-05 DTD. 19/12/05 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5001/2007 AND 18911/2007 DTD. 16/10/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26754/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT After rendering broken service for various spells during the period from 15.9.1980 to 17.3.1993, in the B.K. College for Women, Amalagiri, Kottayam, petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy with effect from 17.7.1995. According to the petitioner, the appointments for the broken periods and the regular appointment were approved by the University. 2. It is stated that, giving the benefit of Exts.P5 and P6 and reckoning the broken service rendered, she was placed in the senior scale with effect from 10.3.1997 and that the same was also approved by the University as per Ext.P1. It is also stated that subsequently, she was placed in the Selection Grade, with effect from 10.3.2000 and that wp(c).no.26754/07 2 by Ext.P2, that was also approved by the University. However, when the bills were forwarded under the cover of Ext.P3, the same was declined to be acted upon and Ext.P4 was issued objecting to the reckoning of the broken service rendered by the petitioner for her placement in Selection Grade. It is at that stage, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Heavy reliance is placed place Ext.P7 judgment rendered by this court in WP(c).No.5001/07, following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Cherian Mathew V. Principal, S.B. College, Chnaganacherry (1998(2)KLT 144) and in Shalini Rachel V. Manager, Christian College(2007(3) KLT 355). 4. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that according to the second respondent, the broken service is inadmissible for placement in the Selection Grade and therefore he has sought clarification from the University vide his letter dated 11.8.2006 and reminders have been given on 17.12.2006 and 16.10.2007. It is stated wp(c).no.26754/07 3 that so far clarification has not been furnished by the University and it is therefore he is not in a position to take up a final decision in the matter. 5. In the judgments referred to above, this court has already held that when the University has granted its approval, should he so desires, the course open to the 3rd respondent is to get the matter clarified with the University. In this case, as can be seen from the records, the 2nd respondent has already taken up the matter before the University and therefore at this stage the proper course to be adopted is to direct the 3rd respondent University to furnish their reply to the clarification sought for by the 2nd respondent and to further direct the 2nd respondent to decide on the claim of the petitioner, on that basis. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall furnish reply to the clarification sought for by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks wp(c).no.26754/07 4 from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt there of the 2nd respondent shall take a final decision in the matter within 4 weeks thereafter. 7. Needless to say that depending upon the final order to be passed monetary benefits due shall be released to the petitioner within another 6 weeks. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. wp(c).no.26754/07 5