IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 11789 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. V.CHANDRAN, LECTURER (SELECTION GRADE) DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, KOLLAM-5 2. A. HASHIMUDEEN LECTURER (SELECTION GRADE) DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, KOLLAM-5 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION DDE'S OFFICE, KOLLAM 3. THE PRINCIPAL T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE KOLLAM-5 4. THE UNIVSERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, KARIAVATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER KOLLAM MAIN TREASURY KOLLAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMOOD FOR R1, R2 & R5 ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 11789/2008-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A.C.F.III/2/21343/2001 DATED 08/01/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/02/2004 IN W.P.(C). NO. 6201 OF 2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.AC.F.III/2/19243/2005 DATED 06/03/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.AC.F.III/2/24780/2005 DATED 27/02/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.F1/UGC/2609/2006 DATED 14/08/2006. EXT.P5(a); COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.F1/UGC/2055/06 DATED 14/08/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A.C.F.III/2/21343/2001 DATED 08/01/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SERVICE BOOK OF THE 1ST PETITIOER. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION STATEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF SB OF THE IIND PETITIONER. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION STATEMENT OF THE IIND PETITIONER. EXT.R2(e) & (f): COPY OF THE WORKLOAD STATEMENT & SENIORITY LIST OF HINDI DEPARTMENT. EXT.R2(g): COPY OF THE WORKLOAD STATEMENT OF ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT & SENIORITY LIST. EXT.R2(h): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LR.NO.18372/C3/02/H.EDN. DATED 17/02/2004. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 11789 OF 2008 (C) ==================== Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were appointed as lecturers in the college of which the 3rd respondent is the Principal, w.e.f 21/12/93 and 6/6/1994. Their appointments were approved by the University. Subsequently, w.e.f. 21/12/98 and 6/6/99, they were placed in the senior scale and that was also approved by the University as per Ext.P1. However, the 2nd respondent declined to act upon Ext.P1 and counter sign the salary bills. 2. At that stage, petitioners along with another teacher who was also placed in the senior scale in Ext.P1, approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.6201/04. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment, holding that in view of the approval granted by the University, petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, directions were issued and it is stated that benefits flowing from their placement in the senior scale were also released. 3. Again with effect from 21/12/2003 and 6/6/2004, petitioners were placed in the selection grade and that was approved by the University as per Exts. P3 and P4. When the salary bills were placed before the Deputy Director, an endorsement was made on Exts. P5 and P5(a). A WPC 11789/08 :2 : reading of it shows that though the 2nd respondent admitted their placement in the selection grade, they were called upon to furnish affidavits in stamp paper, agreeing to refund with interest the amount claimed as salary/arrears, if on a later date the same is objected in audit or by Government order. It is taking exception to the aforesaid requirement to furnish the affidavit that the writ petition was filed. Counter affidavit filed would indicate that according to the respondents as the workload is insufficient, the petitioners cannot be granted selection grade. 4. The objection taken by the respondents, in my view, cannot be accepted. This is for the reason that assessment of workload is essentially for the University to do and the approval granted by the University is also binding on the 2nd respondent in view of the law laid down by this court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal S.B.College, Changanassery (1998(2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007(3) KLT 355). It is also held in that judgment that the course open to the 2nd respondent, is only to take up the matter with the University and seek appropriate clarifications. 5. In this case, even as on date, the approval granted by the University remains, and if that be so, the 2nd respondent is bound to WPC 11789/08 :3 : honour the selection grade that is granted to the petitioners and if so, the endorsement made in Exts.P5 and P5(a) cannot be justified. 6. Writ petitioners are entitled to succeed and the 2nd respondent is directed to countersign the salary bills of the petitioners and permit them to draw salary and arrears in the scale as permissible to lecturer selection grade without insisting on any affidavit as required in Exts. P5 and P5(a). This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp