IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24665 of 2006(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. LEELAMMA.M.M., BENNIGIRI, NELLOONNI, MATTANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 702. 2. SHALINI, KUNHIM VEETTIL, OHM VIHAR, KOLARI P.O., MATTANNUR (VIA) KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 702. BY ADV. MR.SARVOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. SECRETARY, N.S.S.COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE, CHANGANACHERRY-2. 3. PRINCIPAL, P.R.N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 702. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.T.K.MOHANAN R2 & R2 MR.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE R2 & R3 BY ADV.MR.P.GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24665/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.F/5950/2004 DTD. 5.7.04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P1(a):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.F/5951/2004 DTD. 5.7.04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.72/04/H.EDN. DTD. 2.7.04. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DTD. 16.1.06. P4:- COPY OF THE REPLY LETER NO.E/1161/06 DTD. 27.2.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DTD. 16.10.03. R3(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(MS) 95/06/H.EDN. DTD. 10.8.06. R3(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.24665/2006-J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners were appointed as Guest Lecturers (English) in P.R.N.S.S. College, Mattannur. Their appointment was on condition of payment on hourly basis at the rate of Rs.100/- per hour subject to a maximum of Rs.5,000/- with effect from 12/07/2004. The College is an aided one affiliated to the Kannur University. Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the orders of appointment. According to the petitioners, they had worked therein from July 2004 to 31/03/2005 and they were paid only a consolidated amount of Rs.1,500/- every month till February 2005 from P.T.A fund. It is their case that Government as per G.O.(MS). No.72/2004/H.Edn., dated 02/07/2004 enhanced remuneration of Guest Lecturers working in Government and Aided Arts and Science Colleges under the Collegiate Education Department from Rs.100/- per hour to Rs.120/- per teaching hour subject to ceiling of Rs.6,000/- per month. Ext.P2 is the said order. It is also mentioned that the first petitioner herein had earlier worked in the above College as Guest Lecturer during the academic year 2003-04 and her remuneration for that period was disbursed. The amount as per Government Order dated 02/07/2004 for the period from W.P.(C). No.24665/2006 -:2:- July 2004 to 31/03/2005 have not been disbursed to the petitioners and, it is in these circumstances, they have approached this Court seeking for various reliefs. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is averred that as per Ext.R3(a) the Additional Director of Collegiate Education has assessed the workload of 51 hours for the subject English and 46 hours for the newly sanctioned course, namely, B.A. English (Language and Literature Course). Only three posts of Lecturers were sanctioned to the Department of English and he has not sanctioned any posts for the newly sanctioned course, B.A. English. The Government had clarified as per G.O.(MS).No.134/98H.Edn. dated 09/11/1998 that sanction is granted for new courses subject to the condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of the Government, on this account. It is averred that the Government by order G.O.(MS).No.95/2006/H.Edn. dated 10/08/2006 prescribed guidelines for filling up of vacancies of teachers in aided Colleges. It is also averred that, B.A. English (Language and Literature Course) imparted in the College is not a self-financing course. The Kannur University has granted affiliation to the B.A. English (Language and Literature Course) started in the College in the year 1998-99. The College has remitted the W.P.(C). No.24665/2006 -:3:- fee collected from the students studying for B.A. English (Language and Literature Course) to the Government Treasury as per the Direct Payment Agreement. Therefore, the stand taken is that the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education is bound to take into account the Lecturer hours for B.A English (Language and Literature Course) in the College, namely, 46 hours also for determining the workload in the Department of English in the College for sanctioning the number of teaching posts in the Department of English in the College. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education the stand taken is that the Government accorded sanction for starting B.A English course during the year 1998-99 in PRNSS College, Mattannur on the specific condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of the Government on this account and hence, the expenditure for starting B.A. English course in the College has to be met by the Management. 4. The question, whether the Government can wriggle out from the liability to pay salary by relying upon similar conditions, was considered by this Court in W.A.No.2529/2005 and by R.P.Nos.101 & 180/2008 the judgment W.P.(C). No.24665/2006 -:4:- rendered was recalled. The Writ Appeal was finally heard on 07/10/2009 and it was held in paragraph (22) thus:- “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 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 W.P.(C). No.24665/2006 -:5:- 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.” Again in paragraph (23) it was held thus:-. “If this be the position, 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. Therefore, we cannot be find fault with the conclusion of the learned Judge that the Government was not justified in incorporating unilateral conditions in the order sanctioning the courses, in breach of the Statutory Direct Payment Agreement and the provisions of the University Act and Rules.” This Court ultimately held therein that the Government is bound to meet the expenditure towards his salary. W.P.(C). No.24665/2006 -:6:- 5. Therefore, the objection that is raised herein by the first respondent relying upon the conditions prescribed by the Government in Ext.R1(a) cannot be sustained since the College in question is an Aided College and also they are governed by the relevant statutory provisions. 6. In the light of the above, writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to be paid salary at the admissible rates from time to time during their period of employment under the third respondent and the third respondent will forward the bills relating to the payment of salary to petitioners 1 and 2 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and on production of the same, the first respondent will take appropriate action to see that the amounts are disbursed within a further period of six weeks thereafter. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms