Allowed

The Manager v. the University of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2012WP(C)/21991/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that University of Kerala's approval of teaching appointments was final and could not be stalled by State or Departmental authorities. The Fourth Respondent was directed to pay salaries within two months under the principle that once the University grants approval based on statutory norms, there is no room for Government interference.

What did the court decide?

The Fourth Respondent directed to pay salaries and arrears to petitioners 2-5 within two months of receipt of judgment.

The Manager Vs the University of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21991 of 2012 (y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. THE MANAGER,

¶8

CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR-689 122.

¶9

2. DR. TIJU JOSEPH MATHEW,

¶10

LECTURER (NOW DESIGNATED AS ASST. PROFESSOR) IN PHYSICS

¶11

CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR-689 122.

¶12

3. DR. ANEJ SOMARAJ,

¶13

LECTURER (NOW DESIGNATED AS ASST. PROFESSOR) IN ENGLISH

¶14

CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR-689 122.

¶15

4. SMT. JOLLY ALEX

¶16

LECTURER (NOW DESIGNATED AS ASST. PROFESSOR) IN ENGLISH

¶17

CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR-689 122.

¶18

5. DR. TEENA LIS LUKE

¶19

LECTURER (NOW DESIGNATED AS ASST. PROFESSOR) IN CHEMISTRY

¶20

CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR-689 122.

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.)

¶22

SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN

¶23

RESPONDENTS:

¶24

1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶25

2. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶26

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶27

3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIKAS BHVAN, PMG JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶28

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

¶29

KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶30

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY. R2-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C).No. 21991 of 2012 (y)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT-P1 - T C	RUE COPY OF THE MINU OMMITTEE HELD ON 14-6	TES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION -2011 FOR THE SUBJECT PHYSICS.
EXHIBIT-P1(A)	- TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION COMMITT ENGLISH.	MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EE HELD ON 14-6-2011 FOR THE SUBJECT
EXHIBIT-P1 (B)	- TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION COMMITT CHEMISTRY.	MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EE HELD ON 14-6-2011 FOR THE SUBJECT
EXHIBIT-P2 -	TRUE COPY OF THE III/26439/2011 DA RESPONDENT.	APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.Ac.F TED 17-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT-P2(A)	- TRUE COPY OF THE III/40098/2011 DA RESPONDENT	APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.Ac.F TED 17-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT-P3 -	TRUE COPY OF THE FIXATION ORDER DA FOR THE YEAR 2011	WORK LOAD ASSESSMENT AND STAFF TED 6-7-2011 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY -12.
EXHIBIT-P4 -	TRUE COPY OF THE OF PHYSICS.	LIST OF TEACHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT-P4(a)-	TRUE COPY OF THE OF ENGLISH.	LIST OF TEACHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT-P4(B)-	TRUE COPY OF THE OF CHEMISTRY.	LIST OF TEACHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT-P5 -	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 25-4-2012	FORWARDING LETTER OF THE SALARY BILL
EXHBIT P5(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PRINCIPAL	CERTIFICATE DATED 7.9.2012 ISSUED BY
EXHIBIT-P6 -	TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO	LETTER DATED 3-5-2012 ISSUED BY THE THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P6(A)	- TRUE COPY OF THE THE PRINCIPAL TO	REPLY DATED 7TH MAY 2012 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT-P7 -	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT	LETTER DATED NIL SENT BY THE 4TH
EXHIBIT-P7(A)	- TRUE COPY OF THE PRINCIPAL TO THE	REPLY DATED 3-8-2012 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7(B)	- TRUE COPY OF THE PRINCIPAL TO THE	REPLY DATED 3-8-2012 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶36

WP(C).No. 21991 of 2012 (y)

¶37

EXHIBIT-P7(C) -	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINCIPAL TO THE	REPLY DATED 3-8-2012 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8 -	TRUE COPY OF THE 21.7.1999	G.O.(MS)NO.88/99/H. EDN. DATED
EXHIBIT-P8(A)-	TRUE COPY OF THE TO THE 2ND RESPON	INTIMATION DATED 9TH MAY 2011 SENT DENT
EXHIBIT-P8(B) -	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 4TH RESPONDEN APPOINTMENT OF DR 10-5-2010.	OBJECTION DATED 10-5-2010 RAISED BY T IN RESPECT OF THE APPROVAL OF .JAYAKRISHNAN AND DR.ABHILASH DATED
EXHIBIT-P9 -	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO.16572 OF	ORDER DATED 26-10-1995 PASSED IN 1995.
EXHIBIT-P9(A) -	TRUE COPY OF THE WPC.666/2011.	ORDER DATED 27.1.2011 PASSED IN

¶38

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 21991 of 2012

¶44

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2012

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Whether the approval of appointment of the petitioners 2 to 5 as given by the University is liable to be stalled at the instance of the State/Departmental authorities is the question.

¶47

The 1^st petitioner is the Manager of the institution namely, the Christian College, Chengannur, while the petitioners 2 to 5 hold the post of Lecturers appointed by the 1^st respondent. As per the accepted norms prescribed by the University, the person to be appointed ought to have been qualified and it should have been within the sanctioned strength as per the staff fixation order, as let known vide Ext.P3 proceedings dated 6.7.2011. As a matter of fact, the concerned petitioners were appointed against retirement vacancies as borne by Ext.P4 and P4(a), i.e., within the staff fixation order (Ext.P3) and it was in the said circumstance, that the matter was considered by the University, who granted approval as per Ext.P2 and P2(a) proceedings.

¶48

After obtaining the approval, the salary bills were raised

¶49

W.P.C. No. 21991 of 2012 -2-

¶50

and forwarded to the 4^th respondent for taking appropriate steps and to effect the payment of salary to the concerned petitioners. On receipt of the same, Ext.P6 objection was raised by the 4^th respondent stating that the proceedings were defective and sought to clarify certain aspects and this was immediately responded to by the 1^st respondent, vide Ext.P6(a). The 4^th respondent raised Ext.P7 objection again, mainly to the effect that, no prior sanction of the Government was obtained and also that the Government nominee was nominated for conducting the selection without obtaining necessary sanction from the Government and hence the proceedings were bad. The 1^st respondent clarified the position vide Exts. P7(a), P7(b) and P7(c) asserting the rights and liberties of the petitioners concerned, to have the benefits sought for; particularly, with reference to the relevant G.Os. and also with regard to the binding judicial precedents.

¶51

The petitioners are now before this Court challenging the course and proceedings being pursued by the 4^th respondent without any regard to the law declared as per the judgments reported in Cherian Mathew v. Manager, S.B. College (1998 (2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel V. Manager, Christian

¶52

W.P.C. No. 21991 of 2012 -3-

¶53

College (2007 (3) KLT 355) . Reliance is also sought to be placed on Exts.P9/P9(a) interim orders passed by this Court, enabling the petitioner therein to enjoy the salary during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, exactly similar issue, in respect of the very same college, has been considered by another learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C).No. 34194/2010 and the said writ petition has been allowed, directing payment of salary and arrears to the concerned teacher within the time as stipulated therein. The learned Counsel submits that, the petitioners herein also are entitled to have similar reliefs.

¶54

Heard the leaned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent University.

¶55

The 1^st respondent University has filed a counter affidavit supporting the course and proceedings pursued by the 1^st petitioner, as to the appointment given to the other petitioners. It has been asserted in paragraph '4' of the said affidavit that the Selection Committee included the Government Nominee as well and that, approval has been granted by the University on satisfying the relevant requirements by the petitioners. The

¶56

W.P.C. No. 21991 of 2012 -4-

¶57

State/Departmental authorities have not chosen to file any counter affidavit.

¶58

During the course of hearing it is also brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. Babu Varghese, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the approval of appointment is to be given as provided under Statute 14 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1979; as per which provision, the approval is to be given by the 'Syndicate', if the appointment is within the staff pattern and if the persons appointed are duly qualified. The provision also envisages verification by the Deputy Director with reference to the work load and such other aspects, with reference to the norms fixed by the University and the Deputy Director is in no way supposed to answer to the Government in any manner. This is the crux of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in 1998 (2) KLT 144 , which was subsequently reiterated in 2007 (3) KLT 355 as well, holding that, once the matter is considered by the University and approval has been granted by the Syndicate, there cannot be any further Government interference. The position in this regard stands considered by another Single Judge of this Court in exactly similar situation, in W.P.(C).No. 34194/2010 and

¶59

W.P.C. No. 21991 of 2012 -5-

¶60

the benefits sought for by the petitioners there in have been granted.

¶61

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioners are also entitled to succeed. The 4^th respondent is directed to take further steps to clear the salary bills presented by the 1^st petitioner, if they are otherwise in order, and the amounts payable to the petitioners 2 to 5 shall be disbursed at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶62

Writ petition is allowed. No cost.

¶63

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶64

Kp/-

The Manager v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. the University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Subramaniam Potti Vs Devaswom Board Commissioner

K.I.Xavier Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Binitha Chandran Vs Kreala Public Service Commission

Abdul Fathah Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Sajeevan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Represented by Its Administrator

Nijil Dimlee P. Vs the Director of Public Instruction