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 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 258 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.27508/2007 Dated 02/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1&2 IN W.P:- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN W.P:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REENA NAIR, LECTURER IN ENGLISH, NEHRUE ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE, KANHANGAD. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGATTUPARAMBU P.O., KANNUR. 3. THE MANAGER, NEHRUE ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, KANHANGAD, PADNEKAT P.O., KASARAGOD. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.258 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. This writ appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The writ petitioner approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the non-payment of salary to her though the University approved her appointment as per Ext.P2. By Ext.P3, the Deputy Director declined to honour her salary bill. Therefore, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P3. The learned Single Judge by interim order dated 2-11-2007 directed payment of salary to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal. According to them, the P.G.Course in English in the petitioner's college has been sanctioned as per Annexure-A1 order on the specific condition that there will not be any additional financial commitment to the State by reason of sanction of that course. According to the Government, the periods for the said course cannot be taken into account for approval of appointment of teachers. Even if the University approves the appointments made, taking into account the additional periods of the P.G.Course in English the Government are not bound to pay salary, it is submitted. The writ petitioner points out that W.A.No.258/2008 -2- the consistent stand taken by this Court is that once the University approves the appointment, the Government are bound to pay the salary. In support of that submission, a recent writ appeal judgment rendered by us in W.A.No.3030/2007 is also relied on. The said decision was rendered by us relying on a number of decisions of this Court on the above aspect. But, the appellants would submit that all the relevant facts cannot be placed before this Court when the said appeal was heard. They point out that since the periods sanctioned as per Annexure A-1 were also taken into account for approving the appointment of the writ petitioner and others, the Government are not bound to pay salary for the additional posts of English lecturers approved taking into account those additional periods also. (2). The University would admit that if the periods for M.A. (English) are excluded, the remaining periods will be only 51 hours. The total 126 hours were taken into account for approval of appointment of the petitioner which includes 75 hours of M.A. (English) also. Learned counsel for the University also submits that the University is granting approval with reference to the number of periods available, in the light of the Ordinance of the University. The liability to pay salary has nothing to do with the approval, it is submitted. The W.A.No.258/2008 -3- University in its counter also stated that there are 6 teachers working in the English Department apart from the present petitioner. (3). The point canvassed by the appellants, according to them, is covered by the decision of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Arun George (2008 (1) KLT 195) . But, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has got a case that the said decision permits appointment to retirement vacancies. The writ petitioner has been appointed in a retirement vacancy. She has also got a case that a person appointed subsequent to her is drawing salary pursuant to the order of this Court. (4). We notice that, by the interim order, the learned Single Judge has practically granted the final relief in the writ petition. The point canvassed by the appellants relying on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Arun George (2008 (1) KLT 195) and also relying on Annexure A-1 is not seen considered while the interim order was passed. May be, the Government may not have brought the same to the notice of the learned Single Judge. If the contentions of the appellants are upheld, the petitioner may not be entitled to get salary from the State Government. We are refraining from expressing any W.A.No.258 /2008 -4- opinion regarding the rival contentions as one side or other will be affected by it at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. But, we have no doubt in our mind that the impugned order should not have been passed as an interim measure. Accordingly, it is set aside. It is made clear that we have not expressed any final opinion regarding the contentions raised by both sides. The learned Single Judge is free to take a decision in accordance with law uninfluenced by our observations. We hope that the learned Single Judge will try to hear the writ petition expeditiously. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. MS