IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 308 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.26062/2007 Dated 15/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WPC: ---------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, O/O. OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GIRVASIS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN THE WPC: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. PRASANNA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. M. MOHANAKRISHNAN, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. M.K. SATHEESAN, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. REENA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. DR. ASHA K., LECTURER IN ENGLISH, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. MEENA SHANKER, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. NISHA NAMBIAR, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 8. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBU, KANNUR. 9. THE MANAGER, N.S.S. COLLEGES (SECRETARY N.S.S.COLLEGES CENTRAL COMMITTEE, CHANGANACHERRY-2). 10. THE PRINCIPAL, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S. COLLEGE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN FOR R8 ADV, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 TO R7 ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R9 & R10 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 308 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the appellants. They challenge the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 15- 11-2007 directing the appellants to pay salary to writ petitioners 5 to 7. 2. Writ petitioners 5 to 7 are Lecturers in English at Pazhassi Raja N.S.S. College, Mattannur managed by the 9th respondent herein. Though the University approved the appointments of the petitioners as per Ext.P2, the Deputy Director, who should normally release the salary, raised certain objections as per Ext.P4. Aggrieved by the above, the writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 and also to release the salary. The learned Single Judge by the impugned interim order allowed their prayer. Hence, the appeal. WA 308/08 2 3. The appellants would point out that as evident from Annexure-A1, the course of B.A. English Language and Literature was sanctioned to the College without any additional financial commitment on the part of the Government. It means if any teacher is appointed for the said course, the Government will not pay the salary. The appellants would point out that this stand taken by them is supported by Annexure-A4 Division Bench judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “..State can always impose conditions, while according sanction as is done in Ext.P2 and P2(a). Condition laid down by the Government orders in Exts.P2 and P2(a) are therefore perfectly legal and valid and the Management is bound by those conditions and it is the responsibility of Managements to pay salary to the teachers whom they have appointed on the strength of Exts.P2 and P2(a) orders.” The appellants submitted that the periods for the course sanctioned as per Annexure-A1 are also taken into account by the University to approve the appointments of writ petitioners 5 to 7. To show that those periods were also taken into account , Annexure-A5 table showing the workload, number of period etc. is relied on . As per that, for English three posts of lecturers alone are permissible. Taking into account the WA 308/08 3 additional work load, one more post may be permissible. So, only four lecturers are permissible as per the work load. At present, there are three existing teachers and three more (petitioners 5 to 7) are now appointed. So , the direction to pay salary at least to petitioners 6 and 7 is unjustified, it is submitted by the appellants. 4. The writ petitioners would point out that in view of the several decisions of this Court that once the University approves the appointment of a teacher, the Government are bound to pay the salary. If the Government have any objection, it should take up the matter with the University and seek review of the decision of the University. This submission is supported by the learned counsel for the Manager also. The learned counsel for the University supported the computation of periods and the teaching posts available as per Annexure-A5. 5. We anxiously considered the contentions raised on both sides. We feel that the contention of the Government mentioned in para 3 above requires consideration at the hands of the learned Single Judge in the light of Annexure-A4 Division Bench judgment of this Court. If we express something on the merits of the contentions of the WA 308/08 4 parties, one side or the other may be affected when the case is heard by the learned Single Jude. So, we would only say that the direction to pay the salary before the matter is finally decided appears to us to be wrong. Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent it directs payment of salary to petitioners 6 and 7 (who are respondents 6 and 7 herein) will remain stayed till the hearing of the writ petition. We hope the learned Single Judge will hear the writ petition at the earliest. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N. Ravindran, Judge. mn. WA 308/08 5