IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5747 of 2010(P)
1. DR.B.H.SELIN JOY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
3. MANAGER, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
----------------------
WP(C) No.5747 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed in the 3rd respondent’s
College, which is an aided College, in a leave vacancy and it
was approved by the University. When a regular vacancy
arose, by Ext.P1 judgment, this court directed consideration
of the claim of the petitioner, pursuant to which the
Registrar of the University issued Ext.P2 direction to the
Manager. Accordingly, the third respondent appointed the
petitioner as a lecturer in the Physics department with effect
from 04.6.2007 by Ext.P3 order. Syndicate of the first
respondent University approved the appointment of the
petitioner. Peittioner’s grievance in the writ petition is that
despite the approval granted, the second respondent is not
disbursing the salary due to the petitioner for the approved
appointment. According to the petitioner, in veiw of the
various Division Bench decisions of this court including the
WP(C) NO.5747 OF 2010
2
decision in State of Kerala v. Arun George, (2009 (4) KLT
972), once the University grants approval, the Educational
Authorities cannot withhold salary due to the teacher for the
approved appointment on the ground that the approval is
irregular. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this
Court has already held that, if the Government has any case
that the approval is irregular, their remedy lies in taking up
the matter with the University or challenging the approval
order appropriately.
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions
submits that, since there is not enough workload for a post
to accommodate the petitioner, the approval is irregular.
She further submits that it is open to the Government to
take up the matter with the University and until the
University confirms the approval, the Educational Authorities
cannot be forced to pay salary to the petitioner.
3. The learned Standing counsel for the University
submits that so far no query regarding the validity of
WP(C) NO.5747 OF 2010
3
approval has been raised by either the second respondent or
the Government.
4. I have considered rival arguments in detail.
5. I am of opinion that in view of the various Division
Bench decisions of this court, now that the University has
granted approval of the petitioner’s appointment, the second
respondent cannot take the stand that the salary of the
petitioner cannot be disbursed, since the second respondent
disputes the validity of the approval itself. Once the
University grants approval it is incumbent on the second
respondent to disburse salary, in accordance with the
approval granted by the University. The fact that the
University has approved the petitioner’s appointment is not
disputed before me. Therefore, the remedy of the second
respondent lies in taking up the matter with the Univeristy
or to challenge the approval order appropriately. The
petitioner cannot be denied salary for the approval of his
appointment simply because the Government feels that the
WP(C) NO.5747 OF 2010
4
approval is irregular. Accordingly the second respondent is
directed to disburse arrears of salary due to the petitioner
for her approved appointment as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the judgment.
However, I make it clear that, it would be open to the
second respondent to take up the matter with the
University or to challenge the approval order appropriatley.
S.SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
DMB