IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9314 of 2010(L)
1. JAYASUDHA S.
... Petitioner
2. GIRIJA NAIR, LECTURER IN PHYSICS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
4. KERALA UNIVERSITY,REP BY ITS REGISTRAR.
5. MANAGER,N.S.S.COLLEGES(SECRETARY,N.S.S
6. THE PRINCIPAL, M.G.COLLEGE,
7. THE PRINCIPAL, M.M.S.S.S.COLLEGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :28/10/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 9314 OF 2010 L
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in
M.G.College, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P1 appointment order
dated 11.11.2008. The second petitioner was appointed as Lecturer
in Physics in M.M.N.S.S.College, Kottiam, Kollam, as per Ext.P2
order of appointment. The University of Kerala approved the
proposal for appointment of the petitioners. The University assessed
the workload and found that the petitioners could be duly appointed
in the Colleges.
2. However, when the salary bills of the petitioners were
prepared by the Principal and forwarded to the Deputy Director of
Collegiate Education for obtaining his counter signature, it was not
countersigned by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in the
case of the first petitioner and it was rejected by the Deputy Director
in the case of the second petitioner. Rejection of the salary bill of the
second petitioner was made as per Ext.P7 on the ground that the
concurrence of the Government was not obtained and therefore, the
claim could not be entertained. As per Ext.P8 letter dated 29.7.2009,
W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
the Deputy Director directed the Principal (7th respondent) to send
the proposal for approval of appointment of the second petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when
the appointment is approved by the University, the Government is
not entitled to deny salary to the Lecturers. It is submitted that the
issue is well settled by the decisions in Shalini Rachel v. Manager,
Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355) and in Cherian Mathew v.
Principal, S.B.College, Changanassery (1998 (2) KLT 144). In
Shalini Rachel’s case, it was held thus:
“9. We are of the view, above mentioned
provisions of the University Act, Statutes and
Ordinances would clearly indicate that it is for the
University to sanction the post as per clause (3) of
Statute 14 of the Kerala University (Conditions of
Service of Teachers and Members of Non-teaching
Staff) First Statutes, 1979 in the case of private colleges
coming under the Direct Payment Scheme, depending
upon the work load and staff pattern fixed by the
University. Once University accords sanction of a post
and grants approval depending upon the work load and
staff pattern, the Deputy Director of Collegiate
Education shall verify before making direct payment of
W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
salaries as to whether the post for which payment is
claimed is in accordance with the staff pattern and
workload fixed by the University. If the University grants
approval noticing that it is in accordance with the staff
pattern and work load fixed by it, the Director of
Collegiate Education or the officers concerned are
obliged to make payment of salary as per the direct
payment scheme.
10. Scope of S.57(2) of the Kerala University Act
has to be tested in the light of the above mentioned
statutory provisions. Power of the University in granting
approval as well as sanctioning posts after ascertaining
the work load and fixation of staff pattern as per the
Statutes has not been taken away by the University
Amendment Act 2 of 2005. Clear cut provisions have
been made in the University Statutes and Ordinances
as to how the work load has to be assessed and staff
strength fixed so as to avoid unnecessary appointments.
Further the interest of the students is also to be
safeguarded by appointing sufficient number of teachers
without delay. Power is also conferred on the Deputy
Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter
with the University in case there is any doubt with the
approval granted. In appropriate cases, Government
can also examine the action taken by the Deputy
Director and address the University through him.
W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
11. We have no reason to think that an august
body like Syndicate or the Deputy Director of Collegiate
Education would act arbitrarily or against public interest
while exercising powers statutorily conferred on them.
Sub-s. (1) of S.57 only says that appointments to the
posts eligible to receive salary from the Government
shall be made only after getting prior sanction from or
from such officers authorised by the Government. For
filling up the posts sanctioned by the University on the
basis of work load or staff pattern, no prior permission of
the Government is necessary. Once Syndicate of the
University grants approval for filling up the existing
vacancies depending upon the workload and staff
pattern Government is obliged to pay salary of the
teachers appointed by duly constituted Selection
Committee. If Government or its officers find that the
approval was granted by the University illegally it can
always take up the matter before the University or other
forums so that public interest will not suffer. S.57(1)
was introduced not to take away the statutory powers
already conferred on the Syndicate of the University.
Principle laid down in Cherian Mathew’s case, supra in
our view, still holds good. In view of the above
mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to affirm the
judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.12109 of 2006 and dismiss W.A.No.940 of 2007.”
W.P.(C) NO.9314 OF 2010
:: 5 ::
4. The decision of the Division Bench in Cherian Mathew’s
case was followed in Shalini Rachel’s case.
5. In view of the binding decisions of the Division Bench, the
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education was not justified in not
honouring the salary bill of the second petitioner or in withholding
the salary bill of the first petitioner. Ext.P7, to the extent it relates to
the second petitioner, and Ext.P8 are accordingly quashed. The
petitioners are entitled to get salary in view of the fact that their
appointments were duly approved by the University. The Deputy
Director of Collegiate Education shall countersign the salary bills of
the petitioners presented to him without raising any objection that
prior concurrence of the Government was not obtained or on the
ground of any workload or on any other ground which will go against
the dictum laid down in Cherian Mathew’s case and Shalini Rachel’s
case referred to above.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/