IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7254 of 2007(L)
1. SANGEETHA VARMA, SREEVALSOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
3. SECRETARY, NSS COLLEGE,
4. PRINCIPAL, NSS COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :30/07/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 7254 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims that she was appointed as Lecturer in English
with effect from June 15, 2005 against a retirement vacancy in
N.S.S. College, Ottapalam, under the management of respondent
No.3. She joined duty on June 20, 2005 and her appointment was
approved by the University on December 26, 2005. Grievance of the
petitioner is that she has not been paid salary so far, though the
Government is bound to pay the same under the Direct Payment
Agreement.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the
management has contended that appointment of petitioner in the
Department of English in N.S.S. College, Ottappalam, was made
against the resignation vacancy of Smt. Smitha K., who was placed
at rank no.1 under open merit category in Ext.R3(a) select list. Smt.
Smitha K. was appointed in N.S.S. College, Ottapalam, by the
manager with effect from October 16, 2004 in the retirement vacancy
of Sri. Govindankutty Kartha, who retired from service on March 30,
WPC NO.7254/07 Page numbers
2002. It is contended by the management that appointment of
petitioner was perfectly in order. A perusal of the additional counter
affidavit of respondent No.3 undoubtedly shows that the contention
raised by respondent No.2 cannot be prima facie sustained. Anyhow
I hasten to add that it is for the Directorate to look into all these
matters in consultation with the University. If the Directorate is of the
view that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular, as
contended by the management, appropriate action can be taken.
3. In the counter affidavit it is contended by respondent No.2
that appointment of petitioner was against the rules since there was
excess staff in the colleges under the N.S.S. Corporate management
consequent on the delinking of Pre-degree in colleges. The counter
affidavit is totally vague and evasive to say the least.
4. Anyhow, I do not propose to go into the above issue any
further in view of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of this
Court recently in W.A. 940/07 in State of Kerala v. Dr. Sina and
Others [2007 (3) ILR Kerala 122]. The Division Bench held that the
Director of collegiate Education or the officers of the Directorate were
obliged to make payment of salary if the University had granted
approval to the appointment. Obviously, the University must have
WPC NO.7254/07 Page numbers
considered the staff pattern, workload etc., while granting approval.
Even if the Directorate feels that it was done otherwise, it will be
always open to the directorate to revert back to the University. Statue
14(3) empowers the controlling officers to ensure that no fresh
appointment is made against any vacancy until all the
supernumeraries are absorbed. The only contention raised by
respondent No.2 appears to be that there are excess staff in the
colleges under the management. If respondent No.2 holds such a
view, necessarily he is bound to address the University requesting for
scrutiny and verification of the records in which event an appropriate
decision in the matter can be taken.
5. In that view of the matter, I find no justification in refusing to
pay salary and allowances to the petitioner on the specious plea that
the appointment is not liable to be approved and that she is not
entitled to get salary since there are excess staff in the college under
the management. Such an indifferent attitude cannot be
countenanced from a statutory authority.
Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent No.2 to raise its objection, if any, as regards the approval
of appointment of the petitioner before the University of Calicut,
WPC NO.7254/07 Page numbers
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The University shall take a decision in the matter within one month
from the date of receipt of such request from respondent No.2. At
any rate, it shall be ensured by respondent No.2 that the entire
process of scrutiny / verification is completed and salary and
allowances are paid to the petitioner, within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a
certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition
before respondent No.2 for compliance.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.7254/07 Page numbers
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
OP NO.20954/00
JUDGMENT
1ST MARCH, 2007