IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 728 of 2010(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SREEDEVI.S.R., LECTURER IN COMMERCE, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NISHAD.N.K., LECTURER IN COMMERCE, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R2 SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN FOR R1 SRI.J.C.STEPHENSON FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 728/2010. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DD.9.11.98. P1A. COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DTD.8.4.99. P2. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK LOAD AND FIXATION OF STAFF STRENGTH. P2A. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WORKLOAD. P3. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION. P4. COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT. P5. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.31.5.08. P5A. COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER 22.12.08. P6. COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION DTD.22.12.08. P6A. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.18.11.09. P6B. COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DTD.31.3.09. P7. COPY OF THE WORK LOAD AND STAFF FIXATION ORDER DTD.1.4.09. P8. COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DTD.29.8.09. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.728 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are lecturers of an aided college belonging to the 1st respondent. The Government sanctioned a new course in the college. It is to teach the students in the new course that the petitioners were appointed. The petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that the University is not taking steps to approve the appointments apparently on the ground that the course was sanctioned without additional financial commitment on the part of the Government. According to the petitioners, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George [2009 (4) KLT 972], neither the Government nor the University can take a stand that because the course was sanctioned without additional financial commitment from the Government, they will not approve the appointments and disburse salary to the petitioners. 2. Both the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that in view of the fact that the course has been sanctioned without financial commitment, the appointment of teachers for teaching students in the additional course cannot be approved and it is for the manager to find resources for payment of salary to the teachers appointed to those w.p.c.728/10 2 posts. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that in view of the Division Bench decision, supra, relied upon by the petitioners, the Government and the University cannot be heard to contend that because the course was sanctioned without financial commitment from the Government, they are not bound to approve the appointments and pay salary. The University is bound to ascertain whether the workload in a college warrants approval of appointment of additional teachers. Once they find that the workload warrants appointment of further teachers, University has no option but to approve the appointments. This is all the more so in view of the above Division Bench decision. The learned Government Pleader contends that against the judgment of the Division Bench, the State has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which is pending. That is also not a ground for not following that Division Bench decision. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider the question of approval of the petitioners' appointments without reference to the fact that the course was sanctioned without additional financial commitment on the part of the Government and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, w.p.c.728/10 3 at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On approval of the appointments, the Government shall pay salary to the petitioners without prejudice to the Government's right to challenge the approval or to take up the question of approval with the University, appropriately. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge