IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21893 of 2009(F)
1. D.YOHANNAN KUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
4. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.N.SUGATHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 21893 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 1st day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Tradesman in
Mechanical Engineering Department in the T.K.M. College of
Engineering, Kollam with effect from 1-6-1995. While he was working
so, three vacancies of Instructor Grade II arose in 2006 and the
petitioner was selected and appointed to one of those vacancies by
Ext. P3 order. The petitioner filed this writ petition complaining that
the University has not approved the appointment of the petitioner and
the petitioner is not being paid salary from 2007 onwards. Now, the
petitioner has produced Ext. P8 order dated 15-10-2009 issued by the
University of Kerala, whereby the petitioner’s appointment has been
approved with effect from 23-11-2007. The petitioner now submits
that the 3rd respondent may be directed to disburse the salary due to
the petitioner in view of the approval granted by the University for
the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner relies on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v.
Arun George, 2009(4) KLT 972 and earlier judgments of this Court ,
whereby this Court has held that once the University approves
appointments, the Government has no option but to pay salary of the
staff whose appointments have been approved by the University. It
has also been held that if the Government does not agree with the
approval granted by the University, their remedy lies in either taking
up the matter with the University or challenging the approval
granted by the University appropriately.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The only
objection raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the
Government does not agree with the approval granted by the
University to the petitioner’s appointment.
3. This Court has settled the law on the subject by several
W.P.C. No. 21893/09 -: 2 :-
Division Bench decisions including Arun George’s case (supra),
whereby it has been held that once the University approves the
appointment, the Government is bound to disburse the salary due to
the employee of an aided college. If the Government is aggrieved by
the approval itself, it is for the Government to take up the matter
with the University or challenge the order of approval of the
University appropriately. It is not now disputed before me that the
petitioner’s appointment has been approved by the University.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the
3rd respondent is directed to take steps to disburse the salary due to
the petitioner whose appointment has been approved by the
University, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make
it clear that this will not prejudice the right of the Government to
challenge the approval granted by the University to the petitioner’s
appointment appropriately. However, as long as the approval by the
University stands, the petitioner shall be continued to be paid salary.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.