IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 5747 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.B.H.SELIN JOY, LECTURER IN PHYSICS DEPARTMENT, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION;, KOLLAM. 3. MANAGER, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, STANDING COUNSEL R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI R3 BY MR.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN R3 BY MR.J.C.STEPHENSON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT W.P.(C) No.5747 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1 :- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2007 IN WP(C) NO.18986/2007. EXT.P2 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.10.2007. EXT.P3 :- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED 5.12.2007. EXT.P4 :- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 9.5.2008 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2008 EXT.P6 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2007 OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 :- COPY OF THE WORK LOAD STATEMENT OF THE COLLEGE OF THE YEAR 2006-07. EXT.P8 :- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.4.2009 OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXT.P9 :- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.2007 IN WP(C) 9563/06. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------- WP(C) No.5747 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed in the 3rd respondent's College, which is an aided College, in a leave vacancy and it was approved by the University. When a regular vacancy arose, by Ext.P1 judgment, this court directed consideration of the claim of the petitioner, pursuant to which the Registrar of the University issued Ext.P2 direction to the Manager. Accordingly, the third respondent appointed the petitioner as a lecturer in the Physics department with effect from 04.6.2007 by Ext.P3 order. Syndicate of the first respondent University approved the appointment of the petitioner. Peittioner's grievance in the writ petition is that despite the approval granted, the second respondent is not disbursing the salary due to the petitioner for the approved appointment. According to the petitioner, in veiw of the various Division Bench decisions of this court including the WP(C) NO.5747 OF 2010 2 decision in State of Kerala v. Arun George, (2009 (4) KLT 972), once the University grants approval, the Educational Authorities cannot withhold salary due to the teacher for the approved appointment on the ground that the approval is irregular. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this Court has already held that, if the Government has any case that the approval is irregular, their remedy lies in taking up the matter with the University or challenging the approval order appropriately. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that, since there is not enough workload for a post to accommodate the petitioner, the approval is irregular. She further submits that it is open to the Government to take up the matter with the University and until the University confirms the approval, the Educational Authorities cannot be forced to pay salary to the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing counsel for the University submits that so far no query regarding the validity of WP(C) NO.5747 OF 2010 3 approval has been raised by either the second respondent or the Government. 4. I have considered rival arguments in detail. 5. I am of opinion that in view of the various Division Bench decisions of this court, now that the University has granted approval of the petitioner's appointment, the second respondent cannot take the stand that the salary of the petitioner cannot be disbursed, since the second respondent disputes the validity of the approval itself. Once the University grants approval it is incumbent on the second respondent to disburse salary, in accordance with the approval granted by the University. The fact that the University has approved the petitioner's appointment is not disputed before me. Therefore, the remedy of the second respondent lies in taking up the matter with the Univeristy or to challenge the approval order appropriately. The petitioner cannot be denied salary for the approval of his appointment simply because the Government feels that the WP(C) NO.5747 OF 2010 4 approval is irregular. Accordingly the second respondent is directed to disburse arrears of salary due to the petitioner for her approved appointment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. However, I make it clear that, it would be open to the second respondent to take up the matter with the University or to challenge the approval order appropriatley. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE DMB