IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 W.A.No. 2649 of 2009 ----------------------------------- (AGAINST JUDT. DT.30.9.2009 IN WPC No.26646 of 2006) APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1,2,3 & 6: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ------------------------- 1. ANITHA THOMAS, W/O.T.J.DANIAL, LECTURER SENIOR SCALE, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, BISHOP ABRAHAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE, THURUTHIKKAD. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, BISHOP ABRAHAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. T.A. SHAJI. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.2649 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Petition. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. She filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the appellants to pay salary to her in the post of Lecturer Senior Scale (Mathematics) with effect from 2.5.2003, in the light of Ext.P5 decision dated 30.6.2005, of the competent authority of the M.G.University. The brief facts of the case are the following: Pursuant to a selection by a duly constituted selection committee, the respondent/writ petitioner was selected as Lecturer in Mathematics in a deputation vacancy, as per the appointment order dated 27.8.1990, in the 4th respondent's College. The said appointment was approved by the University by proceedings dated 23.1.1991. On W.A.No.2649 of 2009 - 2 - termination of the vacancy, she was relieved on 26.3.1991. Later, she was re-appointed on 2.12.1998. The said appointment was approved by the University as per Ext.P2 and concurred by the Government as per Ext.P3. Later, she was placed in the post of Lecturer Senior Scale by the Manager with effect from 2.5.2003. The University approved the same as per Ext.P5. But, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education did not release the salary. According to him, the first respondent/writ petitioner has neither cleared the NET nor acquired M.Phil Degree before 31.12.1993. So, objection was taken against Ext.P5. But, the University reiterated its stand taken in Ext.P5. It took the view that the teachers appointed up to 14.5.1992 and re-appointed thereafter are exempted from acquiring NET and other higher academic qualifications provided under the U.G.C. norms. In that view of the matter, the University declined to reconsider the matter. When there was delay from the part of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to release the salary, the first respondent approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition. W.A.No.2649 of 2009 - 3 - The appellants resisted the claim raising the aforementioned objections. The learned Single Judge repelled the objection and allowed the Writ Petition, relying on the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B.College, Changanacherry, 1998 (2) KLT 144 and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College, 2007(3) KLT 355. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned Government Pleader, who contended that the first respondent is not qualified for the post and going by the relevant orders, she is not entitled to get exemption from acquiring the qualifications. We find that the said objection was considered and rejected by the University. Therefore, the appellants are bound to release the salary to the first respondent. The appellants cannot say that they will follow the decision of the University if only it is correct in their view also. If the appellants find that the decision of the University is not correct, they have to work out W.A.No.2649 of 2009 - 4 - their remedy against it and avoid the same in appropriate proceedings. As long as the decision of the University stands, the first respondent is entitled to get salary. Therefore, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)