Vidya E a Vs Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram

¶1

2025:KER:19806

¶2

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WP(C) NO. 4660OF 2015

¶9

PETITIONER :

¶10

VIDYA E A

¶11

AGED 30 YEARS

¶12

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ECONOMICS), SREE NARAYANAGURU
COLLEGE, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
 SRI.R.ROHITH

¶14

RESPONDENTS :

¶15

1 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶17

3 PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA GURU COLLEGE, CHELANNUR,KOZHIKODE - 673 021.

¶18

4 MANAGER, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, THE SREE NARAYANA TRUSTS,KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶19

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTHIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001.

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU(R4)
 SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN MVA(R4)

¶21

2025:KER:19806

¶22

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶23

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

R1,2 AND 5 - SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

2025:KER:19806

¶28

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶29

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2025

¶32

The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics under the 4th respondent’s College at Kollam on 24.02.2010, which falls within the jurisdiction of Kerala University. Thereafter, her appointment was approved as per Ext.P2. The petitioner is Serial No.10. Later, the probation period was declared successful with effect from 05.03.2011.

¶33

Since the petitioner is a native of Thrissur District, she sought a convenient posting to her home place-Irinjalakuda, on interuniversity transfer. While continuing there, a vacancy arose at Sree Narayana Guru College, Chelannur, Kozhikode due to the relieving of Dr.M.P. Dinesh with effect from 04.07.2013 to take up employment in Government service. Under such circumstances, the 4^th respondent Manager has issued order dated 05.07.2013, whereby the petitioner was transferred to SN College, Chelannur as Assistant Professor in Economics against the vacancy that arose on relieving Dr.M.P.Dinesh. On 15.07.2013, petitioner was relieved from the service of 4^th respondent to join the college of 3^rd respondent. Both these colleges are under the same management. The transfer was accepted and

¶34

2025:KER:19806

¶35

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶36

¶37

formalities for payment of salary were finalised without delay and the petitioner was receiving salary while working in that college under the

¶38

Calicut university.

¶39

After some time, the 3^rd respondent received a letter from the 2^nd respondent calling for a report on the basis of an unsigned complaint received by them in the name of one ‘Save SNDP Forum’ alleging that a teacher from SN College under the Kerala University in the Economics Department was transferred to SN College, Chelannur, and as there was no sufficient workload for the sanctioned post in the Department of Economics in that college, it was requested to enquire into the matter. In response to that, the 3^rd respondent preferred a report to the 2^nd respondent wherein it is taken that there is an exemption of 4 hours in the weekly workload of NCC ANOs was not a hollow statement but supported by a government decision. It is evident from Ext.P10 dated 13.10.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government to the Director of Collegiate Education and the Director of Technical Education that by letter No.4475/A2/04/H.Edn. dated 26.02.2004, a clarification has been issued to reduce the weekly workload of

¶40

ANOs upto a maximum of 4 hours, wherever adequate staff is available

¶41

2025:KER:19806

¶42

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶43

¶44

in accordance with the UGC Norms. But a restriction is imposed with respect to the appointment of additional staff.

¶45

Later in the year 2015, the incumbent who holds the post of ANO, Smt.Kumari Padmaja P.S., Associate Professor in Economics Department retired from service with effect from 30.04.2014. Thereby, only two faculties under the Economics Department are working with effect from 01.05.2014. At that point of time, the workload of the Department of Economics under the 3^rd respondent College was 40, which permits appointments of two posts at the rate 16 hours per post. On taking into consideration Ext.P10 dated 13.10.2004, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since the second incumbent is holding the charge of ANO, she is entitled to a reduction of 4 hours out of 16 hours. Moreover, being an Associate Professor, she is required to handle only the workload of 14 hours. Taking into consideration all these factors, altogether 26 hours of workload was available for the existing two teachers at the time of joining of the petitioner against the 40 hours of assessed workload. The remaining is 14 hours workload.

¶46

The petitioner was appointed against the vacancy due to the relieving of Dr.M.P. Dinesh whose appointment was approved and who drew salary till 04.07.2013. On approving the inter-university transfer,

¶47

2025:KER:19806

¶48

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶49

¶50

the petitioner was also permitted to draw salary till 12/2014. By the time of Ext.P14 Order dated 22.12.2014, there were sufficient posts available as per the existing workload as Smt.Kumari Padmaja P.S., retired from service with effect from 30.04.2014, and the vacancy was available with effect from 01.05.2014. The 3^rd respondent has also certified that, at that point of time, already two faculties were working under the Economics Department against the workload of 40 hours.

¶51

In the meanwhile, by Ext.P2 the 2^nd respondent has forwarded a report to the 1^st respondent on the basis of an anonymous and unsigned complaint. Wherein it is stated that the workload at the 3^rd respondent College is 40 hours. As per law, two faculties can be accommodated for 32-hour workload. What remains is 8 hours. On 03.12.2014 itself three faculties were working. From 2013 July 4, the petitioner was transferred from Kollam SN College to SN College Chelannur which comes within the jurisdiction of the University of Calicult as an inter-University transfer under the Economics Department. Moreover, it is also reported that as per the GO(MS) No.640/2013/H.Edn. dated 10.10.2013, earlier Government Order dated 12.09.2013 was modified and the course allotted to 3^rd respondent College for BBA was converted as MA Economics. Thereby

¶52

2025:KER:19806

¶53

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶54

¶55

the workload has been raised to 66 hours. This report is issued on 07.10.2014. Even thereafter, on 04.11.2014, the 4^th respondent was

¶56

directed to cancel the transfer and repatriate the petitioner to the SN College, Kollam. In the light of that, Ext.P14 sanction of the salary was declined. This is the circumstance in which the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶57

Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the petitioner was originally appointed under SN Trust Management, at SN College, Kollam as Asst. Professor Economics, under the Kerala University. The SN Trust management has a practice of transferring teachers from one college to another under separate Universities without considering the workload and nature of posts. While transferring her, only two sanctioned posts were available under the 3^rd respondent against 40 hours workload per week. The petitioner was transferred on 15.07.2013 to 3^rd respondent College against the third post, which is not sanctioned. She joined the College on 17.07.2013 against the vacancy of Dr.M.P. Dinesh, who had

¶58

been relieved from service to join government service. Apart from the petitioner, two other teachers were working against the existing workload. While a complaint was received from a forum named ‘save

¶59

2025:KER:19806

¶60

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶61

¶62

SNDP Forum’ stating that the transfer was effected against a nonexisting post and against the workload available in the college and hence the 1^st respondent directed the 2^nd respondent to conduct enquiry into the affairs.

¶63

Accordingly, a report was obtained from the 3^rd respondent wherein it is stated that one teacher of the Economics Department is

¶64

NCC ANO and she has an exemption of 4 hours on the basis of Government letter dated 13.10.2004 and such workload can be reduced up to a maximum of 4 hours, wherever adequate staff are available in accordance with the UGC Norms. Appointment of additional staff on this account will not be permissible and misconstruing the said letter, the 4^th respondent continued to appoint the teachers. It is also admitted that after the retirement of Smt.Kumari Padmaja from Economics Department on 30.04.2014, only two teachers were available, including the petitioner. On a finding that there is no sufficient workload, the 4^th respondent was directed to withdraw the petitioner from 3^rd respondent college and to appoint her to 4^th respondent college. The transfer of the petitioner was effected against a vacancy that occurred on a subsequent event. In fact, the vacancy in which the petitioner was originally appointed was an excess one.

¶65

2025:KER:19806

¶66

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶67

9 Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶68

In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein she reiterated the contention raised in the writ petition. It is also contended that there were three teachers working in the Economics Department. When a third teacher, Smt.Sindhu Krishnadas, was denied salary on the ground of insufficient workload, she had approached this Court and obtained a judgment whereby the High Court directed to release her salary on declaring that once the university approved the appointment of a teacher in a college, the Directorate of Collegiate Education is bound to release salary. Thereby, the working of third teacher in SN College Chelannur is settled. Moreover, by Ext.P18 the petitioner is trying to substantiate that there was sufficient workload to accommodate the petitioner.

¶69

An additional counter affidavit was filed by the 2^nd respondent wherein on the strength of Exts.R2(a) and R2(b), the actual workload after accommodating two Assistant Professors is 8 hours only. The 4 hour exemption of an ANO cannot be calculated as per the Government Letter dated 13.10.2004. Since the letter dated 18.08.2015 of the

¶70

2025:KER:19806

¶71

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶72

¶73

Director of Collegiate Education to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education says not to fill up the posts consequent to the retirement of Kumari Padmaja, the petitioner’s transfer to SN College Chelannur is irregular. This was also replied to by the petitioner by preferring an additional affidavit. Thereby denied the contentions in the additional affidavit.

¶74

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent, but supporting the contentions of the petitioner.

¶75

I have heard Sri.K.Sasikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.A.N Rajan Babu for R3 and R4, Sri.Binoy Davis, learned Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R5.

¶76

Having considered the submissions across the Bar, it appears that the petitioner was originally appointed against the existing vacancy under the 4^th respondent. Her appointment was approved by the University and her probation was declared. Later, on her request for a transfer to a convenient place near to home station, she was transferred to a vacancy that arose at 3^rd respondent College due to the relieving of Dr.M.P.Dinesh to join government service. Thereafter, that appointment itself was approved by the University and salary was disbursed till a complaint was received by the 2^nd respondent.

¶77

2025:KER:19806

¶78

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶79

¶80

On receipt of the complaint from a third person, with respect to the workloads as well as excess of teachers under the Economic Department, enquiry has been conducted by the 2^nd respondent, and a report was submitted to the 1^st respondent. Accordingly, the 1^st respondent directed the 4^th respondent to cancel the transfer of the petitioner and to repatriate her. In the light of such direction, the salary of the petitioner was denied from 12/2014. But during the pendency of the writ petition, on considering that a vacancy has arisen with effect from 01.05.2014, due to the retirement of Kumari Padmaja, the Associate Professor, a direction was issued to disburse the salary of the petitioner with effect from the date of the petition and the petitioner is now receiving the salary. What remains is a period between 12/2014 till the disbursal of salary to the petitioner after Ext.P14. Under such circumstances, a perusal of Ext.P7 judgment has relevance. In a similar situation, this court has considered the issue and concluded that once the University has approved the appointment of a teacher in a college, the director of Collegiate Education is bound to release the salary.

¶81

The remedy available in such cases is that the Director of Collegiate Education can move the University to cancel such approval.

¶82

2025:KER:19806

¶83

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶84

¶85

Unless and until the University cancels such approval, the 1^st or 2^nd respondent cannot deny salary. Here, the University has already

¶86

approved, and later salary has been disbursed to the petitioner till 12/2014. With regard to the workload and excess posting of teachers, the management cannot deny salary to the petitioner. That too on the basis of Ext.P12 report, wherein it is specifically stated that at the time

¶87

of issuing Ext.P14, the workload of Economics Department has been increased to 66 hours pursuant to the introduction of MA Economics. Hence, Ext.P14 and P13 are set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed

¶88

to calculate the salary which is in arrears and disburse it to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶89

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

ttb

2025:KER:19806

¶94

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶95

¶96

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4660/2015

¶97

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶98

EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 24.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶99

EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
6.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.

¶100

EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
2.8.2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶101

EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER
DATED 4.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶102

EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
5.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶103

EXT.P-6: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER
DATED 15.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL,
S.N.COLLEGE, KOLLAM.

¶104

EXT.P-7: A TRUE COPY OF THE UNSIGNED COMPLAINT
IN THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT SAVE SNDP FORUM

¶105

EXT.P-8: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29.1.2014 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶106

EXT.P-9: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
6.2.2014 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT

¶107

EXT.P-10: A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER
DATED 13.10.2014 ADDRESSED TO THE IST
RESPONDENT

¶108

EXT.P-11: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
16.1.2015 SHOWING THE FACT OF THAT RETIREMENT
AND THE FACT OF ONLY 2 FACULTIES WORKING IN THE
DEPARTMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 1.5.2014.

¶109

2025:KER:19806

¶110

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶111

EXT.P-12: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
4.10.2014 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE IST RESPONDENT

¶112

EXT.P-13: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

¶113

4.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶114

EXT.P-14: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
22.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT

¶115

EXT.P-15: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 6.1.2015 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶116

EXT.P-16: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 29.1.2015 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE IST RESPONDENT

¶117

EXT.P-17: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
28.8.2006 IN WPC NO.35412 OF 2005 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶118

EXT.P-18: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE UGC
REGULATIONS DATGED 30.06.2010.

¶119

EXT.P-19: A TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED
12.03.2012 ISSUED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

¶120

EXT.P-20: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24.01.1999 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶121

EXT.P-21: A TRUE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GO(P)
No.58/2010/H.Edn., DATED 27.03.2010.

¶122

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS:

¶123

EXT.R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
No.18138/A2/04/H.EDN. DATED 13.10.2004.

¶124

EXT.R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
D2/37852/2013/COLL.EDN. DATED 18.08.2015.

¶125

2025:KER:19806

¶126

WP(C)No. 4660 of 2015

¶127

¶128

EXT.R2(C): TRUE COPY OF THE POST ADALATH

¶129

//TRUE COPY//

¶130

 Sd/-
 P.S. TO JUDGE

Vidya E a v. Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidya E a v. Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fedex Express Services (India)Pvt.Ltd Vs Smt.Shiny.P.a.

Shiny P.A. Vs Labour Court

M.v.Raju Vs M/S.Railway Employees Consumer Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.E4

M.Divakaran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Sathya Thampuran Vs State of Kerala

Valsamma Rajappan Vs State of Kerala