IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 136 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4270/2006 Dated 31/07/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AJITHA. V.R., SENIOR SCALE LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, HENRY BAKER COLLEGE, MELUKAVU MATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (KRISHNAPRIYA, VENGALLOOR, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT.) 2. THE MANAGER, HENRY BAKER COLLEGE, MELUKAVU MATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, HENRY BAKER COLLEGE, MELUKAVU MATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP FOR R1 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. No. 136 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the appellants. The brief facts of the case are the following:- The 1st respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in the 2nd respondent's College as Hindi Lecturer by Ext.P3 order dated 6.11.1995. The said appointment was approved by the University as per Ext.P4 order dated 12.4.1996 with effect from 8.11.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner has been paid salary and was working without any objection from any quarters. On completion of six years service, the 1st respondent was given placement in the scale of pay of Senior Grade Lecturer by the Manager by order dated 7.11.2001 with effect from 21.9.2001. The University approved the said appointment also as per Ext.P6 order dated 20.4.2005 with effect from 21.9.2001. But the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kottayam did not approve the said placement by WA.136/07 : 2 : Ext.P10 order dated 17.1.2006. The result was that she was not getting salary in the higher scale of pay. The 2nd appellant stated his objection that as the 1st respondent was appointed in a Pre Degree vacancy after 1.4.1990 and she has been accommodated in the periods available in a newly sanctioned course without additional financial commitment/ exceeding budget allotment, she is not eligible to get placement under the career advancement scheme. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P10. Though no copy of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition is produced along with the writ appeal memorandum, a reading of the impugned judgment would show that the Government resisted the prayers in the writ petition, relying on Ext.P11 circular issued by the Government on 9.2.2004. According to the Government, going by the teaching periods available, only one post is sanctioned in the department of Hindi in the Post Adalath Review. She, being the juniormost lecturer, was allowed to continue without additional financial commitment. The learned Single Judge took the view that in support of the above submission, the Government have not produced any materials. It is not clear from WA.136/07 : 3 : the materials on record that the 1st respondent was appointed in a Pre Degree vacancy or she was retained, taking into account the periods of a course sanctioned without financial commitment. The learned Single Judge, relying on Cherian Mathew Vs. Principal, S.B.College, Changanassery [1998 (2) KLT 144], held that once the University approved the appointment of lecturers, the Government is bound to sanction and release the salary. Even in the face of the above criticism made by the learned Judge, the Government have not chosen to produce any materials along with the appeal memorandum in support of the contention. Now, we are told that the 1st respondent did not have the qualification for placement also. We find no such ground has been taken before the learned Single Judge. In support of the said submission, the order governing placement in the senior scale dealing with prescription of qualification is also not placed before us. In the above context, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeal. To provide the Government a chance to avoid payment of public money unnecessarily, we allow the 2nd appellant to move the University with sufficient materials to show that the placement of WA.136/07 : 4 : the 1st respondent in the senior scale is unjustified, within one month from today. In that event, the syndicate of the University shall consider those objections and pass a speaking order, giving their reasons, within six weeks from the date of receipt of that communication from the 2nd appellant. If, in case, the University is inclined to review Ext.P6, the 1st respondent shall be given an opportunity to represent against the same and the decision shall be rendered taking into account her objections, if any, filed also. Subject to the above direction, the writ appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) aks