IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2007 / 21ST ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21448 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. GEETHA GEORGE K., LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. K.RAMACHANDRAN, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. DR.VIJAYAKUMAR .A.R LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANADDISTRICT. 4. LATHEESH KUMAR.A.R. LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 21448 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are stated to be working as Lecturers in various Departments in St.Mary's College, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad. Their grievance appears to be that they are being denied salary though they were appointed against sanctioned posts. More importantly, their appointments were approved by the University also. Learned counsel invites my a attention to Ext.P16 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.940/2007 and connected cases and contends that the refusal on the part of the respondents to release salary to the petitioners is totally illegal. Anyhow I do not propose to deal with the above contentions in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar. He submits that petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to take a decision on Exts.P12 to P15 representations submitted by the petitioners expeditiously. 2. Learned Govt. Pleader submits that if the above representations have been preferred as contended by the petitioners, a decision thereon will be taken without any delay. 3. In the above facts and circumstances the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 to P15 strictly on their merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While passing WP.21448/07 2 orders on the above representations, respondent No.3 shall keep in view Ext.P16 judgment also. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any orders are passed. Petitioners shall produce a certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondent No.1 for compliance. an. A.K. Basheer Judge.