IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 5668 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.C.B.NILEENA, LECTURER IN BOTANY, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHERTHALA, S N PURAM PO, S.L.PURAM VIA, CHERTHALA-688 582. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGES, THE SREE NARAYANA TRUST, PB NO.63, KOLLAM-681 001. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, S N PURAM PO, S.L.PURAM VIA, CHERTHALA-688 582. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 6. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.4378/10 DTD.25.3.10) ADV.RAJAN BABU, SC SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR ADDL.R6 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MAHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.5668 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Botany in S.N.College, Cherthala. Her appointment has been duly approved by the University of Kerala as also the Deputy Director of Collegiate Eduction, Ernakulam. But the petitioner is not being paid salary is her grievance in this writ petition. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement taking a contention that approval of the petitioner's appointment is irregular insofar as against 27 posts available, 28 persons are working. They would take the contention that the matter has been referred to the University and the University has not so far replied to the query from the Government. In view of the said submission, the University has been impleaded. However, they have not responded to the writ petition. 3. This Court has time and again held that once the University, who is the competent authority under the provisions of law applicable, approves the appointment of a teacher, the Government cannot take the stand that the Government will not pay salary to the teacher. This Court has also held that if that approval itself is irregular, it is for them to take up the matter before the University or to w.p.c.5668/10 2 challenge the approval itself appropriately. The respondents have no case that the approval has been challenged anywhere. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner has become entitled to payment of salary for her approved appointment. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to pay arrears of salary due to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the salary bills from the 5th respondent-principal of the college. The petitioner shall see that the principal of the college forwards salary bills to the 3rd respondent expeditiously. However, I make it clear that this is without prejudice to the right of respondents 1 to 3 to take up the matter with the University or to challenge the approval itself appropriately. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge