Allowed

Manager,St.Paul'S College,Kalamassery v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/10568/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a private college Manager to quash Government conditions denying financial support for new aided courses and to direct the University to fix staff patterns. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the no-funding conditions and directing the respondents to facilitate salary fixation.

What did the court decide?

Conditions in Exhibits P4, P5, and P6 regarding no financial commitment are quashed. The University is directed to fix workload and staff pattern. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to pass incidental o

Manager,St.Paul'S College,Kalamassery Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10568 of 2006 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANAGER, ST.PAUL'S COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY - 683 503.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

5. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAL

¶16

R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 10568 of 2006 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT. P1	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRO FORMA OF THE DIRECT PAYMENT AGREEMENT.
EXT. P2	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.3.2003 IN O.P.NO.21268 OF 2002.
EXT. P3	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2005 IN WPC.NO.482/2005.
EXT. P4	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.134/98/H.EDN. DATED 9.11.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5	: PHOTOCOPY OF GO(MS)NO.162/99/H.EDN. DATED 6.12.1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT. P6	: PHOTOCOPY OF THE U.O.NO.AC.A-I/1/1068/2001 DATED 23.9.2001 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7	: PHOTOCOPY OF AN ORDER DATED 11.7.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P8	: PHOTOCOPY OF A NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN HINDU DAILY DATED 8.10.2005.
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.10568 of 2006

¶28

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th October, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed by the Manager of a private college affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University seeking direction to the University to fix the staff pattern of teaching staff in respect of newly sanctioned courses and also a direction to the respondents to sanction the post of Lecturers for regular appointment to the courses started in the petitioner's college vide Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 orders of the Government. It is contended that the courses started in the College by the said orders are aided courses and the condition imposed in the orders of sanction to the effect that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of the Government is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Arun George [2015 (1) KLT 833 (SC)] to contend that where sanction is granted by the Government for starting new courses, the Government, which is bound by the direct payment agreement, cannot contend that such sanction would be subject to the condition that there would be no financial

¶33

WP(C).10568/06 2

¶34

commitment on the Government. In the above case it was held that the Government, in terms of the statute and the agreement, has the obligation to meet financial commitment arising out of the sanction of new aided courses in private colleges affiliated to the Universities. In the above circumstances, it was contended that the condition imposed in the sanction orders similar to the condition in Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 can be held to be invalid.

¶35

Counter affidavits have been filed by the University and the Government. It is contended by the Government that since the sanction accorded for starting new courses was on condition that the Government will not be under obligation to meet the additional financial commitment arising out of the said sanction, the courses cannot be considered as aided courses and therefore, the Government has no obligation to pay salary in respect of the teachers appointed. In its counter affidavit the University contends that the fixation of staff pattern is to be done by the Government in terms of the amendment carried out to Section 59(1) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. It is contended that in view of the amendment with effect from 6.1.2005, the University is not in a position to fix the staff strength of private colleges. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in State of Kerala v. Dr.Sina and others [2007(3) ILR Ker. 122] wherein it

¶36

¶37

WP(C).10568/06

¶38

has been held that the power of the University in granting approval as well as sanctioning posts after ascertaining the workload and fixation of staff pattern as per the Statutes has not been taken away by the University Amendment Act 2 of 2005. It is held in the said case that since clear cut provisions have been made in the University Statutes and Ordinances regarding how the workload has to be assessed and staff strength fixed, the University is well within its power to fix the workload and staff pattern.

¶39

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The conditions contained in Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 to the effect that the sanction of posts will be on condition that there will be no financial commitments on the part of the Government are quashed. The University is directed to fix the workload and staff pattern in respect of courses sanctioned as per Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinances regarding workload and staff pattern of teaching staff. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to pass consequential orders in the matter of payment of salary to the teachers appointed by the Manager.

¶40

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

vgs6/10

Manager,St.Paul'S College,Kalamassery v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager,St.Paul'S College,Kalamassery 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumari Vs State of Kerala

Fathima.v.P. Vs Director of Public Instruction

Muhammed Shereef P. Vs the State of Kerala

Leema Alex Vs the State of Kerala and Others

State of Kerala Vs Annie Mathew

K.P. Geetha Vs K.S.E.B.