IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5001 of 2007(U)
1. LEENA DEENJA N.G.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
4. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.5001/07 & 18911/2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
In so far as WP(c).No.5001/2007 is concerned, the
petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer under the first
respondent, initially in a leave vacancy for the period from
11.12.1989 till 17.4.1990 and from 26.11.1990 to
23.7.1996. Thereafter, she was appointed against the
substantive vacancy with effect from 24.7.1996 and is
continuing as such. Taking her entire service, she was
granted Senior Scale with effect from 27.7.1998 and that
was approved by the University as per Ext.P3. Thereafter,
on completion of the required service, Selection Grade was
conferred on the petitioner with effect from 6.8.2001. That
was also approved by the University as per Ext.P2.
However, the Deputy Director of Education raised
WP(c).Nos.5001&18911/2007 2
objections by Exts.P4 and P5. It was thereupon that the
writ petition has been filed. Petitioner contends that, even
as per Ext.P3 Government ordered that broken services are
to be counted.
2. Petitioner in WP(c).No.18911/2007 also was
appointed initially in leave vacancy for the period 1.9.1994
to 2.3.1995, under the first respondent. The University
approved her appointment by Ext.P1. Thereafter she was
appointed in substantive vacancy on 25.7.1997 and that was
also approved by the University as per Ext.P1(a). Being a
Ph.D holder she completed the required extent of service
and was conferred Senior Grade with effect from
22.1.2001. That was also approved by Ext.P2 order of the
University. The Manager made proposal for payment of the
salary and other benefits by Ext.P3 and thereupon the
Deputy Director raised objection. On receipt of the querry
raised by the Deputy Director, the University, issued Ext.P5
(a) reiterating the correctness of the approval granted by
WP(c).Nos.5001&18911/2007 3
them. It would appear that still unsatisfied, the Deputy
Director took up the matter with the Director as per Ext.P6.
It was at that stage the writ petition has been filed.
3. This court had occasion to deal with identical
claims raised by the Lecturers like the petitioner in several
cases and one of the judgments rendered in identical
circumstance is WP(c).No.34367/2007. In that writ petition
following the earlier judgments of this court rendered in
Cherian Mathew V. Principal, S.B. College,
Changanacherry(1998(2)KLT 144) and in Shalini Rachel
V. Manager, Christian college (2007(3) KLT 355), this
court has held that once the University has approved the
appointment, the Deputy Director is bound by the same
applying the law as laid down by the Division Bench. Facts
being similar, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly, it is declared that the petitioners are
entitled to salary and other benefits as applicable to them
following the Selection Grade granted to the petitioner in WP
WP(c).Nos.5001&18911/2007 4
(c).No.5001/2007 and Senior Grade granted to the
petitioner in WP(c).NO.18911/2008 with effect from the
respective dates. Needless to say that consequential
benefits will be released to the petitioner within 3 months
from the date of receipt of the bill.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).Nos.5001&18911/2007 5