Dismissed

Deputy Director of Collegiate Education v. Dr.Sunil Kumar P.

Kerala HC18 Dec 2017RP/921/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition against an order directing payment of salary to a guest faculty member of a college was filed. The petitioner contended that salary bills were submitted after the interlocutory order and that a permanent teacher was present. The court found lack of fresh material regarding employment overlap and dismissed the review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition failed and was dismissed.

Deputy Director of Collegiate Education Vs Dr.Sunil… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 921 of 2017

¶6

-----------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO 31990/2010 DATED 21-03-2017)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IN W.P.(C):

¶8

1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

¶9

ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶10

2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

¶11

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶13

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 IN W.P.(C):

¶16

1. DR.SUNIL KUMAR P., ARACKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM,

¶17

THODUPUZHA EAST P.O.

¶18

2. ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE, VAIKOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,

¶19

KOTHAVARA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 607.

¶20

3. MANAGER, ST.XAVIER'S COLLEGE, VAIKOM, KOTHAVARA P.O.,

¶21

KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 607.

¶22

4. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 562.

¶23

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

¶24

SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.ALEXANDER R4 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC,

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sts

¶27

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶28

Review Petition No.921 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.31990 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2017

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

This review petition is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.31990/2010 dated 21.03.2017. The grounds raised are to the effect that the writ petition had been disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to forward the proposal for payment of the salary to the 4^th respondent and directing the 4^th respondent to pass orders sanctioning the amount. It is stated that at the time when the judgment was issued, no proposal for payment of salary had been forwarded by the Manager to the 4^th respondent and therefore action could not be taken to disburse the salary. It is stated that the salary bills have later been forwarded by the Principal on 19.8.2017. It is stated that on verifying the salary bill, it was found that the petitioner had worked as guest faculty in the St.Xaviers College, Vaikom before 20.8.2010. It is stated that since one permanent teacher had worked during the relevant period, the department was not liable to pay salary due to the petitioner. It is contended in the review petition that the Bsc

¶32

R.P. No.921 of 2017 2

¶33

Zoology Aqua Culture course was sanctioned as a conditional course on the specific condition that sanctioned new course will not cause any financial burden to the Government. It is stated that sanction was accorded to the course as an aided course only from 20.08.2010 and that the course was eligible for financial assistance only since then. It is therefore contended that the petitioner who had worked as guest faculty in the college before 20.8.2010 is not eligible for payment of salary.

¶34

I have considered the contentions advanced. The issue with regard to direct payment of salary to aided courses sanctioned by the Government is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Arun Gerorge [2015 (1) KLT 833 (SC)]. This Court as well as the Apex Court had held that teachers appointed pursuant to sanction of courses in aided colleges which functioned under the direct payment system, are entitled to payment of salary from the Government, since the courses are clearly aided courses.

¶35

With regard to the contention that there was a permanent teacher working in the college during the relevant period, no material what so ever has been produced along with

¶36

R.P. No.921 of 2017 3

¶37

the review petition or even in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition to show that there was any excess hand working against the post or that there was a permanent teacher appointed and working as on the dates when the petitioner claimed salary. In the absence of any such specific plea or materials to show that the petitioner was not entitled to payment of salary for the periods to which the salary bill relate to, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no ground raised for reviewing the judgment.

¶38

The review petition therefore fails, and accordingly it is

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶41

rmm/20/12

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

P.A. To Judge

Deputy Director of Collegiate Education v. Dr.Sunil Kumar P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deputy Director of Collegiate Education v. Dr.Sunil Kumar P.

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

Royal Blue Hotels Vs State of Kerala

Nijimol M.V Vs the Kannur University

Devadas Sukumaran Vs the State of Kerala

Sainulabudden Vs Sree Prakash

Khadeeja E. Vs University of Calicut

Mohammed Safarulla K.K Vs Nilambur Block Panchayat