IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 17495 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.J.LEJI, LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY, SREENARAYANA COLLEGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 4. THE MANAGER, SREENARAYANA COLLEGES, THE SREENARAYANA TRUSTS, KOLLAM-691001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA ADV. SRI. M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18698 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; W.P.C. NO. 17495/2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 28-5-2008. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 30-3-2009. EXT.P3 CIRCULAR DT. 14-7-2008. EXT.P4 COMUNICATION DT. 2-5-2009. EXT.P5 STATEMENT OF WORKLOAD. EXT.P6 COMMUNICATION DT. 10-8-2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) STAFF FIXATION STATEMENT OF 2008-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 17495 & 18698 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the petitioners are lecturers of an aided college. Their appointments have been approved by the University. Despite the same, they are not being given salary for the approved appointments is their grievance in these writ petitions. They rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George, 2009(4) KLT 972 and earlier Division Bench decisions in support of their contention that once the University approves their appointments, the Government is bound to pay salary to the teachers. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The only objection raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the Government does not agree with the approval granted to the petitioners' appointment by the University and therefore salary cannot be paid to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners point out that the Deputy Director of Education has already taken up the matter with the University and by Ext. P6 order, the University has confirmed their stand that the approval of the petitioners' appointment is in order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. 5. This Court has settled the law on the subject by several Division Bench decisions including Arun George's case (supra), whereby it has been held that once the University approves the appointment, the Government is bound to disburse the salary due to teachers of an aided college. If the Government is aggrieved by the approval, it is for the Government to take up the matter with the University or to challenge the order of approval of the University in appropriate proceedings. It is not now disputed before me that the petitioners' appointment has been approved by the University and the W.P.C. Nos. 17495 & 18698/09 -: 2 :- University sticks to their stand that the appointments have been validly approved. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take steps to disburse the salary due to the petitioners for approved appointment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that this will not prejudice the right of the Government to challenge the approval granted to the petitioners' appointment by the University appropriately. However, as long as the approval of the University stands, the petitioners shall be continued to be paid salary. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/