Petitioners challenged an order conditioning a private college teacher's salary on assessment fees. The High Court held that after University approval, respondents cannot withhold salary based on workload objections, setting aside the order.
Ext.P4 set aside; 2nd petitioner declared entitled to salary with effect from 21.2.2015.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 17353 of 2017 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
1. DR.JOSEPH MAR THOMAS MANAGER,
2. SANOOP KUMAR.P.V.,
BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE 673001.
4. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673635
sdr/-
WP(C).No. 17353 of 2017 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF ACTUAL WORKLOAD (COURSE-WISE) FOR THE YEAR 2015-16.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.12402/2015/ADMN. DATED 5.12.2015 ISSUED BY G & A-II-SPECIAL CELL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.9.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.29690/2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1/185/2016/H.EDN.DATED 8.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.11.2016 NO. 37397/G & A-II-SPL.CEL 1/2015/AMN
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.R3(A) THE COPY OF THE WORK LOAD STATEMENT
EXT.R3(B) THE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 87/2012/G.EDN. DATED 12.03.2012
EXT.R3(C) THE COPY OF THE LETTER
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
sdr/-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.17353 of 2017
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:
“i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and to quash that part of the order “to approve the appointment of Sri.Anoop Kumar P.V., Assistant Professor in Travel and Tourism at Pazhassi Raja College, Pulpally as supernumerary post subject to the conditions that he must be absorbed to the regular post as and when it arises and no appointment shall be made against supernumerary post subsequent the absorption of the incumbent in regular post.
ii. To declare that the direction to approve the appointment of 2nd petitioner as supernumerary post subject to conditions that he must be absorbed in the regular post as and when it arises and no further appointment shall be made against this supernumerary post subsequent to the absorption of the incumbent to the regular post is illegal and against University Act and statutes and respondents have no authority to sit in judgment over the decision arrived by the 4th respondent.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the 2nd petitioner in a regular post and giving concurrence to the appointment on the basis of the same.”
2. The first petitioner is the Manager of an Aided
Private College affiliated to the 4th respondent University. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor of Tourism with effect from 21.2.2015. The said appointment was approved by the University. However, the respondents
W.P.(C) No.17353 of 2017 2
1 to 3 did not disburse the salary due to the 2nd petitioner. It was a contention of the Director of Collegiate Education that the work load was not sufficient to sanction the post. The 2nd petitioner had approached this Court earlier and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court held that when the University has determined the work load and fixed the staff strength, the respondents 1 to 3 cannot refuse to pay the salary. The said writ petition was allowed and the respondents 1 to 3 were directed to sanction and disburse the salary due to the petitioner with effect from 21.02.2015. It was contended that in spite of the said judgment, Ext.P4 order was passed approving the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as supernumerary and directing that the amounts spent for disbursement of the salary to the 2nd petitioner shall be reimbursed by the first petitioner. This order is under challenge.
W.P.(C) No.17353 of 2017 3
2002, only two posts of Assistant Professors were admissible in the first petitioner's college in the subject concerned. It is stated that there is no minimum work load for sanctioning the third post, against which the petitioner had been appointed. It is therefore stated that the Government had required the University to reconsider the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner.
clear that the respondents are relying on a Post Adalath allegedly held in 2002 to contend that going by the workload statement, there is no workload to support the 3rd post of Assistant Professor in Travel and Tourism. Ext.R3(a) workload statement would show that it is one prepared on the basis of a meeting held on 18.12.2002. The University has clearly considered the matter and has informed the
W.P.(C) No.17353 of 2017 4
Government that going by the revised curriculum and syllabus, there is sufficient workload to support the fixation of staff strength. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in Cheriyan Mathew v. Principal, SB College, Changanacherry [1998 (3) ILR 1] and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007 (3) KLT 355], respondents 1 to 3 are incompetent to withhold the salary due to the petitioner after approval has been granted, re-examined and confirmed by the University.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE
sab
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents can withhold salary despite university approval of appointment as a supernumerary post.
Whether the government can set aside a previous court judgment directing salary payment to the petitioner.
What relief is appropriate when workload objection is contrary to university's determined staff strength.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Cheriyan Mathew v. Principal, SB College, ChanganacherryFollowed¶61
Cheriyan Mathew v. Principal, SB College, Changanacherry [1998 (3) ILR 1] · Who else cites this
Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian CollegeFollowed¶61
Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007 (3) KLT 355]
Dr. Joseph Mar Thomas
Sanoop Kumar.P.V.
State of Kerala
Director of Collegiate Education
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
University of Calicut
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
