IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 31842 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE MANAGER,ST.MICHAEL'S COLLEGE, CHERTHALA-688 539. 2. SWAPNA.R,LECTURER IN COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,ST.MICHAEL'COLLEGE, CHERTHALA. 3. FR.XAVIER KUDIAMCHERIL,LECTURER IN LAW (PART-TIME),DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ST.MOCHAEL'S COLLEGE,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,P.M.G.,JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY., R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. T.B. REMANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31842/2009-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 06/12/1999. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER GRANTING AFFILIATION FOR THE COURSE DTD. 25/03/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED ON 20/10/2004 IN `THE HINDU'. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). 3440/2005 DTD. 01/02/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 01/03/2005. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 02/03/05. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 18/03/05 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF P.2. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 10/03/05 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF P.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF P.2. DTD. 02/06/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE GOVT. LETTER DTD. 04/08/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE WORK LOAD FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 FOR THE SUBJECT COMMERCE. EXT.P.8.A: COPY OF THE WORK LOAD FOR THE YEAR 2001-02 FOR THE SUBJECT LAW. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 25/11/2009 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P.9.A: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 05/01/2010 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AC.F.III/2/27203/08 DTD. 14/10/2008 SENT BY UNIVERSITY TO THE PRINCIPAL, ST. MICHAEL'S COLLEGE, CHERTHALA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.31842 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the manager of an aided college and the petitioners 2 & 3 are Lecturers appointed by the 1st petitioner in his college. Their grievance in this writ petition is that although there is sufficient workload in the Commerce Department of the college, to accommodate the petitioners 2 & 3, the 1st respondent University is not approving the appointments made, on the ground that the course sanctioned for teaching which the petitioners 2 & 3 were appointed, was sanctioned with the condition that the expenditure thereof shall not exceed the budget allotment. According to the petitioners, the validity of such condition have been considered by a Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. Arun George (2009 (4) KLT 972) and this court has held that such conditions are unsustainable. The W.P.(C)No.31842 of 2009 -2- petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) declare that B.Com degree course sanctioned vide Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) in St. Michael's College, Cherthalai an Aided College is an aided course and hence Government is liable to pay salary to the teachers appointed by the Management, in accordance with University statutes and Ordinance; ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the 1st respondent University to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners 2 & 3 w.e.f. 18.3.2005 and 14.3.2005, respectively taking into account of the work load of the B.Com Degree Course sanctioned vide Exhibits P1 and P1(a) within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court; iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents 3 & 4 to disburse salary with arrears for the period which the petitioners 2 &3 had worked ie. w.e.f. 18.3.2005 and 14.3.2005, respectively, immediately on the grant of approval by the 1st Respondent University; 2. The standing counsel for the University submits that the University can approve the appointments made by the manager of an aided college, only if the posts to which appointments are made, have been sanctioned by the Government. In this case, since the sanctioning of the course itself was with the condition that the expenditure shall not exceed the budget allotment, for teaching which course only petitioners 2 & 3 have appointed, the University W.P.(C)No.31842 of 2009 -3- is not in a position to approve the appointment of the petitioners 2 & 3. The Government also takes the same stand. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The issue involved is no longer res integra, in so far as this is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Arun George's case (supra) in favour of the teachers, wherein this court has held that imposition of such conditions for sanctioning additional courses are unsustainable. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioners 2 & 3 without reference to the condition in the order sanctioning the course that the course has been sanctioned on condition that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment, and if otherwise there is sufficient workload to accommodate the petitioners 2 & 3 and they have W.P.(C)No.31842 of 2009 -4- the required qualifications, the 1st respondent shall approve the appointments of the petitioners 2 & 3. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such approval, the Principal of the college shall forward the salary bill of the petitioners 2 & 3 to the 4th respondent who shall honour the same and disburse the salary to the petitioners 2 & 3 within one month from the date of receipt of the salary bill. However I make it clear that, this is subject to the right of the respondents 2 to 4 to take up the question of sufficiency of the workload with the 1st respondent or to challenge the validity of the approval so granted in appropriate proceedings. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/