Kerala High Court
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ vs Manager on 30 March, 2017
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No. 1640 of 2017 IN WPC. 17915/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17915/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
30-03-2017
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT IN WPC
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE-673001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. E. S. ASHRAF
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C):
1. SUBAIR KUNIYIL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,
POCKER SAHIB MEMORIAL ORPHANAGE COLLEGE,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676306.
2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, MALAPPURAM.673635.
3. THE MANAGER,
POCKER SAHIB MEMORIAL ORPHANAGE COLLEGE,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM.676306.
R1 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI
BY ADV. SMT.THARA THAMBAN
BY ADV. SRI.B.BIPIN
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.A. No. 1640 of 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 14th day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon , J.
Challenge is against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge directing the first respondent Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, North zone, Kozhikkode to disburse the salary due to the petitioner, holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the verdict rendered by this Court in Shalini Rachel Vs. Manager, Christian College [2007 (3) KLT 355], virtually to the effect that once the post was sanctioned by the University, it was not liable to be interfered by the Government with reference to the alleged non approval of the workload. The learned single Judge, however, has permitted the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter with the University, in case they are aggrieved by the approval for want of sufficient workload, at the same time, directing that the arrears of pay shall be disbursed to the petitioner within three months.
W.A. No. 1640 of 2007:2:
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
3. The learned Government Pleader points out that there was no sufficient work load for appointment of the writ petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Mathematics Department. Based on Annexure B produced along with I.A. No. 981 of 2017, it is pointed out that the workload assessed and approved by the Department at serial No. 5 clearly reveals that it is to an extent of 118 hours, which will justify the appointment of only 7 persons. The said proceedings are based on the revised fixation pursuant to the reassessment of the workload on the basis of the meeting held on 18.12.2002. The writ petitioner had approached this Court pointing out that he was appointed against the sanctioned post and joined duty as borne by Ext. P1 appointment order issued by the third respondent on 13.03.2014. A copy of the proceedings dated 23.04.2015 issued by the University has been produced as Ext. P2, which shows that the second respondent University has accorded sanction to the approval of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Mathematics). The contention was that, once W.A. No. 1640 of 2007 :3: the work load was assessed by the University and the post was sanctioned by them, it was never open for the Government to have interdicted the said proceedings in any manner, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in 2007 (3) KLT 355 (cited supra). Reliance was also sought to be placed on Ext. P3 judgment passed under similar circumstances by a learned single Judge in respect of the person by name Dr. Kiran Kumar, who got appointment as Assistant Professor (Maths), subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. As per Ext. P3 judgment, placing reliance on the decision reported in 2007 (3) KLT 355 (cited supra), it was held that claim of the said writ petitioner was liable to be allowed and accordingly, the entire salary and allowances were ordered to be disbursed within two months. After hearing both the sides and appreciating the materials on record, the learned single Judge placing reliance on the verdict rendered in 2007 (3) KLT 355 (cited supra) allowed the writ petition with the direction as mentioned above.
4. The learned Government Pleader points out that, by virtue of the liberty reserved in favour of the appellant to have approached the University, if at all any doubt was there with regard W.A. No. 1640 of 2007 :4: to the approval, it was not correct or proper for the learned single Judge to have directed disbursement of salary arrears before conclusion of the said proceedings. It is also pointed out that, the version of the writ petitioner that the work load position was approved is not at all correct and that no such approval was given by the Deputy Director/Government except to the extent as reflected from Annexure B produced along with I.A. No. 981 of 2017. The said version is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner pointing out that the workload was properly assessed and the post was sanctioned by the University as reflected from Ext. P4 dated 24.03.2011. It is also revealed from the said proceedings that the total work load, after de-linking the pre-degree, was 127 hours in respect of Mathematics and the eligible number of posts were shown as 'eight'. The said proceeding is seen signed by all concerned. The facts and figures have been verified and it has been clearly certified in Ext.P4 that the same has been agreed, subscribing signature of the Principal, the Registrar of the University and also of the first appellant herein. In so far as the said proceedings bears the signature and seal of the first appellant, it is not at all correct or W.A. No. 1640 of 2007 :5: proper for the appellant to contend that the work load and the post as sought to be established by the writ petitioner was never approved by the Government/Department, except to the extent as reflected from Annexure B of the year 2002. Ext. P5 staff fixation statement for the year 2008 - '09 showing the total work load in respect of mathematics as '127' hours and the permissible post as '8' stand signed by the Deputy Director i.e. appellant. However, based on the liberty granted by the learned single Judge to approach the University to get necessary clarification, if at all there was any grievance as to the approval given by the University, letter bearing No. E4/3822/16 dated 02.05.2007 was issued by the appellant to the Registrar of the University, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A along with I.A. No. 981 of 2017.
5. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that Annexure A clarification sought for by the appellant was considered and answered by the University, as per reply bearing No. 47354/GA-II-A2/2014/Admn. dated 11.07.2017 [a copy of which has been placed for perusal], clearly pointing out that the workload has been duly assessed by the W.A. No. 1640 of 2007 :6: University and staff fixation has been duly approved. It is revealed from the said proceedings, that the work load has been assessed as 127 hours in respect of Mathematics in the respondent institution and further that the writ petitioner was occupying the 8 th vacancy, including the Principal and further that the workload of the writ petitioner was 16 hours per week. It is pointed out that the request to re-examine the approval of appointment of the writ petitioner was placed before the Syndicate Standing Committee, who examined the relevant facts and figures and as per the minutes of the meeting [No.12] dated 29.06.2017 of the Syndicate Standing Committee, it has been held that there was sufficient work load; that the appointment was quite proper and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Statute, which in turn was communicated to the Government/appellant, specifically to the effect that the appointment given to the writ petitioner as per the proceedings dated 13.02.2014 was quite in order.
6. In the above circumstances, we find that absolutely no tenable ground is raised or established to call for interference with the verdict passed by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal W.A. No. 1640 of 2007 :7: fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, in view of the fact that the time stipulated for disbursement of salary arrears is already over, based on the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, we find it appropriate to grant six weeks' time to effect the disbursement of the due amount.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sd/-
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. To Judge