IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 1594 of 2006(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT. PRIYADARSHINI.S, ARADHANA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHINES COMPLEX, CHAMAKKADA JUNCTION, KOLLAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, BISHOP MOORE COLLEGE, MAVELIKKARA-690 110. RI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.A. REZIYA R2 BY ADVS. SRI. SATHISH NINAN SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.1594/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 09.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.01.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COURSE SANCTIONED WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMMITMENT. EXT.R1(B): WORK LOAD STATEMENT 2001-02. EXT.R1(C): POST ADALATH REVIEW WORKLOAD. EXT.R1(D): WORK LOAD STATEMENT 2003. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 1594 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a guest lecturer in the 2nd respondent's aided college on 13.8.2001. The petitioner complains of non-payment of salary. The claim for salary was rejected on the ground that courses for which the petitioner was appointed, were sanctioned to the college without any additional financial commitment to the Government. 2. An identical question was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No. 26901/2005, in which the following judgment was passed: “The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Government, whereby the claim for salary to Guest Lecturers was rejected on the ground that the courses for which they were appointed, were sanctioned to the College without any additional financial commitment to Government. Necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are the following: 2. The College is one affiliated to the University of Kerala and is covered by the Direct Payment Agreement. The Government by Ext.P1 granted approval for starting M.A. (English) course subject to the condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of the Government on this account. Ext.P2 is the proceedings of the University granting provisional affiliation for the said course with a sanctioned strength of 15 students. By Ext.P3 the Government accorded sanction to the petitioner for starting B.Sc. (Biotechnology) during the year 1999-2000 subject to the condition that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose on any account and by Ext.P4 the University granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner for starting the said course with a sanctioned strength of 24 students. 3. At the time of sanctioning M.A. (English) course, in the English Department the sanctioned strength of teachers was 15, W.P(C) No. 1594 of 2006 -: 2 :- and at the time of sanctioning B.Sc. (Biotechnology), there were 12 number of teachers in the English Department, 5 number of teachers in Malayalam Department, 4 number of teachers in Hindi Department and 6 number of teachers in Botany Department. Ext.P5 is the statement of workload as on 1.11.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had to appoint Guest Lecturers considering the additional courses sanctioned. 4. Various grounds have been raised in the writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George (2009 (4) KHC 477), wherein this Court considered the question whether the additional courses sanctioned, could be reckoned or not for the purpose of considering the workload and approval of teachers on that basis. The impact of the condition provided in the Government Order while granting provisional affiliation to the course that there will not be any additional financial commitment on the part of the Government, was also considered and finally in para 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 the Rules.” It is the submission of the petitioner that the said dictum will apply to the facts of this case also and therefore the Government may be directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the above judgment. 5. In that view of the matter, to consider the impact of the above judgment by the Government, Ext.P6 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the first respondent to pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. W.P(C) No. 1594 of 2006 -: 3 :- In view of that judgment, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to what orders have been passed pursuant to that judgment. The learned Government Pleader submits that orders have not yet been passed pursuant to that judgment. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to direct the Government to consider the case of the petitioner also while considering the matter as per the above said judgment expeditiously, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned, including the petitioners in both writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Government of Kerala to consider the petitioner's claim also in accordance with the directions in W.P(C) No. 26901/2005. The time fixed in that judgment is already over. In the above circumstances, I direct that the matter, as directed above, shall be considered and orders passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/