IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 258 of 2008()
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
Vs
1. REENA NAIR, LECTURER IN ENGLISH,
... Respondent
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/02/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.258 of 2008
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
This writ appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ
petition. The writ petitioner approached this Court feeling aggrieved by
the non-payment of salary to her though the University approved her
appointment as per Ext.P2. By Ext.P3, the Deputy Director declined to
honour her salary bill. Therefore, the writ petition was filed challenging
Ext.P3. The learned Single Judge by interim order dated 2-11-2007
directed payment of salary to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the
said direction, respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition have filed this
writ appeal. According to them, the P.G.Course in English in the
petitioner’s college has been sanctioned as per Annexure-A1 order on
the specific condition that there will not be any additional financial
commitment to the State by reason of sanction of that course.
According to the Government, the periods for the said course cannot be
taken into account for approval of appointment of teachers. Even if the
University approves the appointments made, taking into account the
additional periods of the P.G.Course in English the Government are not
bound to pay salary, it is submitted. The writ petitioner points out that
W.A.No.258/2008 -2-
the consistent stand taken by this Court is that once the University
approves the appointment, the Government are bound to pay the
salary. In support of that submission, a recent writ appeal judgment
rendered by us in W.A.No.3030/2007 is also relied on. The said
decision was rendered by us relying on a number of decisions of this
Court on the above aspect. But, the appellants would submit that all
the relevant facts cannot be placed before this Court when the said
appeal was heard. They point out that since the periods sanctioned as
per Annexure A-1 were also taken into account for approving the
appointment of the writ petitioner and others, the Government are not
bound to pay salary for the additional posts of English lecturers
approved taking into account those additional periods also.
(2). The University would admit that if the periods for M.A.
(English) are excluded, the remaining periods will be only 51 hours.
The total 126 hours were taken into account for approval of
appointment of the petitioner which includes 75 hours of M.A. (English)
also. Learned counsel for the University also submits that the
University is granting approval with reference to the number of periods
available, in the light of the Ordinance of the University. The liability to
pay salary has nothing to do with the approval, it is submitted. The
W.A.No.258/2008 -3-
University in its counter also stated that there are 6 teachers working
in the English Department apart from the present petitioner.
(3). The point canvassed by the appellants, according to
them, is covered by the decision of this Court in State of Kerala Vs.
Arun George (2008 (1) KLT 195) . But, the learned counsel for the
writ petitioner has got a case that the said decision permits
appointment to retirement vacancies. The writ petitioner has been
appointed in a retirement vacancy. She has also got a case that a
person appointed subsequent to her is drawing salary pursuant to the
order of this Court.
(4). We notice that, by the interim order, the learned
Single Judge has practically granted the final relief in the writ petition.
The point canvassed by the appellants relying on the decision of this
Court in State of Kerala Vs. Arun George (2008 (1) KLT 195) and also
relying on Annexure A-1 is not seen considered while the interim order
was passed. May be, the Government may not have brought the same
to the notice of the learned Single Judge. If the contentions of the
appellants are upheld, the petitioner may not be entitled to get salary
from the State Government. We are refraining from expressing any
W.A.No.258 /2008 -4-
opinion regarding the rival contentions as one side or other will be
affected by it at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. But, we
have no doubt in our mind that the impugned order should not have
been passed as an interim measure. Accordingly, it is set aside. It is
made clear that we have not expressed any final opinion regarding the
contentions raised by both sides. The learned Single Judge is free to
take a decision in accordance with law uninfluenced by our
observations. We hope that the learned Single Judge will try to hear
the writ petition expeditiously.
Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
MS