Partly allowed

Shajid P P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2012WP(C)/26144/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for salary disbursement of an Assistant Professor whose bills were rejected by the Government due to alleged procedural irregularity involving a Government nominee in the selection committee, despite prior University approval.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to countersign the petitioner's salary bills immediately and cause disbursement of salary.

Shajid P P Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 26144 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHAJID P P, AGED 37 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MALAYALAM) M.E.S.KEVEEYAM COLLEGE, VALANCHERY, (S/O.ALI.P.P PAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOCHIKKAL, VALANCHERY.P.O MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 552)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶9

SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.MIZVER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOZHIKODE.

¶13

3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENJIPALAM, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.

¶14

4. PRINCIPAL

¶15

M.E.S. KEVEEYAM COLLEGE, VALANCHERY MALAPPURAM. 676 552.

¶16

R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. VIJU THOMAS BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

tss

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.26144/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

P1- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.GAII/A3/2494/2011 DATED 7.8.2012.

¶23

P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.12.

¶24

P3- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.170/D2/2012/H.EDN DATED 18.1.12.

¶25

P4- PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR INVERVIEWING CANDIDATES HELD ON 3.2.2011.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 26144 of 2012

¶34

¶35

Dated, this the 3^rd day of December, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to the non-countersigning of the salary bills of the petitioner, referring to the fact that there was no concurrence from the part of the Government, especially with regard to the selection and appointment.

¶38

The case of the petitioner as narrated in the writ petition shows that, on substantiating the credentials of the petitioner, he was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor in Malayalam in the 4^th respondent college and he jointed duty on 25.06.2011. The appointment given to the petitioner was approved by the University as borne by Ext. P1. Despite this, when the salary bill of the petitioner was presented before the second respondent, the same came to be rejected, holding that, there was no Government concurrence. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was subjected

¶39

to proper selection conducted by the selection committee wherein the Government nominee by name Sr. N. Sudarsanan

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 26144 of 2012

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

Pillai was also present, as borne by Ext. P4 extract of the relevant minutes and accordingly, the petitioner was selected and appointed, which in turn is approved by the University as well. The petitioner contends that once the approval is given by the University, there cannot be any further objection from the part of the Government; more so, in view of law declared by this Court in Cherian Mathew Vs. Principal, S.B. College, Chenganasserry (1998 (2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel Vs. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355).

¶43

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the selection in the case of the petitioner was not proper as no authenticated document was produced to substantiate the appointment of Mr. Sudarsanan Pillai as a Government representative in the selection committee. It is also stated that the person by name Sri. Sudarsanan Pillai was not authorized to participate in the proceedings and as such, selection can never be considered as

¶44

a proper one.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 26144 of 2012

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

The learned standing counsel for the University submits that, if at all there was any doubt for the departmental authorities, it was very much open for them to have it got clarified then and there, which course has not been pursued in the instant case. It is also asserted that the selection was duly conducted by the selection committee and that the same stands approved by the University as well.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner brought it to the notice of this Court that, an exactly similar issue as in the instant case came to be considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11612 of 2012. The selection proceedings were finalized by the Committee, where the very same person by name Sri. Sudarsanan Pillai was also a member, in his capacity as the Government nominee. After exhaustive analysis of the facts and figures, this Court, as per judgment 10.09.2012 held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed and it was accordingly, that the salary bills were directed to be countersigned, to be presented for further steps and to cause disbursement of salary. This Court finds that the petitioner herein is also

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 26144 of 2012

¶50

: 4 :

¶51

entitled for similar relief, more so, when the law with regard to the course and proceedings, once the approval is granted by the University, stands clearly laid down as per the decisions rendered by this Court in Cherian Mathew Vs. Principal,

¶52

S.B. College, Chenganasserry 1998 (1) KLT 144 and Shalini Rachel Vs. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355).

¶53

6 . In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to countersign the salary bills of the petitioner as and when they presented by the 4^th respondent and the due amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner at the

¶54

earliest without any delay in this regard.

¶55

The Writ Petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶58

kmd

Shajid P P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajid P P v. State 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

Lonan Ouseph Vs Corporation of Kochi

Kunjachan Vs the Changanassery Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

S.Sheeladevi Vs State of Kerala

K.Chandrasekharan Vs v.K.Saigal

Giri v. Vs Kseb

C.v.Dinesan Vs State of Kerala