Kerala High Court
P.S. Vidya vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009
Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/27TH PHALGUNA, 1935
WP(C).No. 27316 of 2012 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
P.S. VIDYA,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
ZOOLOGY,SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE,
NATTIKA, THRISSUR.
BY SRI.N.SUKUMARAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS.SRI.S.SHYAM
SRI.N.K.KARNIS
SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM
SRI.KURUVILLA JOHN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, PIN:680 001.
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
5. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENGIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673 635.
6. MANAGER,
SREE NARAYANA TRUST AND COLLEGES, KOLLAM, PIN-691001.
7. THE PRINCIPAL,
SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, NATTIKA, THRISSUR- PIN:680 566.
R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
R5 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY
R6 &R7 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.27316/2012 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
17.9.2009.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PREPARED BY THE STATUTORY
COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.6.2010.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNIVERITY
APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.9.2011.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE 7TH RESPONDENT DT.28.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 7.3.2012 IN WP(C)NO.45/2012 AND
3415 OF 2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:
ANNEX.R5(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/10/2010 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL
IN CHARGE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION TO THE
UNIVERSITY.
ANNEX.R5(b): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 21/12/2012 SENT BY THE
UNIVERSITY TO THE SECRETARY, SN TRUSTS.
ANNEX.R5(c): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/01/2014 SENT BY THE S.N.TRUSTS
TO THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEX.R5(d): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/1/2012 SEND BY THE UNIVERSITY
TO THE PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION.
Kss ..2/-
..2.....
WPC.NO.27316/2012 (L)
EXHIBIT R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UGC CELL
NO.35999/2002/COLL.EDN. DTD. 16/10/2010.
EXHIBIT R6(b): TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER NO.2/SNT/378 DTD.
7/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(c): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.2/NAT/2198
DTD.13/01/14 ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT MANAGER.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 27316 OF 2012-L
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the 7th respondent college in the subject of Zoology as per Ext.P3 proceedings of the 6th respondent manager. The appointment was against a vacancy which arose consequent to transfer of another Lecturer. The appointment was on the basis of a selection conducted and a rank list prepared as per Ext.P2. The appointment was approved by the 5th respondent University with effect from 17-06-2010, as per Ext.P4 order. When salary bill was submitted for approval of the 3rd respondent, Ext.P5 letter was issued to the 7th respondent seeking certain clarifications and requiring production of certain documents. Thereafter the 3rd respondent requested the 6th respondent to furnish an undertaking to refund the salary paid to the petitioner by the Government in case it is found that the appointment is made in breach of any conditions stipulated or on the event W.P.(c) No. 27316/2012 -2- of any Governmental authorities finding that there was no sufficient work load available at the time of the appointment. Exhibit P6 & P7 are the undertakings submitted by the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent Manager. But the 3rd respondent had again issued Ext.P8 letter to the 7th respondent returning the salary bill stating the reason that, information revealed from the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam is to the effect that one Lecturer is working surplus in a supernumerary post at S.N. College, Kollam, under the 6th respondent management. The 3rd respondent had also issued Ext.P9 letter to the 5th respondent University requiring to reconsider the approval granted. Under the above mentioned circumstances salary was denied to the petitioner from the date of appointment onwards. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 as mentioned above, seeking appropriate direction for payment of the salary.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the ground for rejection of the salary, mentioned in Exts.P8 & P9, are W.P.(c) No. 27316/2012 -3- totally unsustainable. In Ext.P4 order the University had categorically made it clear that approval of the appointment is granted after ascertaining that there is no excess hand working in the college. Once the University approves the appointment, the respondents 2 & 3 are not entitled to raise any objection to deny salary, is the contention. It is pointed out that, approval of salary was also denied in the case of other appointees, included in Ext.P2 Rank List assigning the very same reason. But candidates 1 and 2 included in the Rank List had approached this court challenging the stand taken by the Deputy Director concerned. In Ext.P10 judgment this court observed that the University had approved the appointments after finding that there were no excess teachers working in the Department concerned, in any of the colleges under the 6th respondent management. Referring to judgments of this court in Cherian Mathew V. Principal, S.B. College (1998 (2) KLT 144) and in Shalini Rachel V. Manager, Christian Colleges (2007 (3) KLT 355), it was observed in Ext.P10 that, once the appointment is approved by the University then the W.P.(c) No. 27316/2012 -4- salary will have to be disbursed. In the said judgment, the Principal of the college was directed to forward the bills to the Deputy Director concerned and direction was issued to disburse the amount.
3. In the case at hand, the 5th respondent University had filed a statement to the effect that the 3rd respondent had issued Annexure-R5 (a) letter (Ext.P9) requesting to reconsider the approval. Based on that the University had sought clarification from the 6th respondent. In the reply submitted as per Annexure-R5 (c) the Manager had reported that the appointment of the petitioner is made against a vacancy which arose consequent to inter university transfer given to one Sri.B. Hari, Associate Professor (Zoology). Based on such clarification the University had forwarded Annexure-R5 (d) letter to the 3rd respondent to the effect that there is no supernumerary vacancy under the 6th respondent Management existed at the time of appointment of the petitioner. The respondents 6 & 7 had filed affidavits reiterating their stand that the appointment of the petitioner was made against an W.P.(c) No. 27316/2012 -5- established regular vacancy, and it is not made against any supernumerary post.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that, sanction to fill up one vacancy in Zoology at S.N. College, Nattika was issued by virtue of Government order, in which it was specifically mentioned that the sanction is granted subject to condition that the workload of conditionally sanctioned courses was not taken into account for assessing the vacancies, and on further condition that there was no excess or deployed teachers and teachers on deputation working in the Department. But on verification it was revealed that there was an excess teacher working in the Department of Zoology at S.N. College, Kollam. It is further stated that, as per the Government letter the 3rd respondent was directed to verify documents such as undertakings furnished by the Manager before admitting salary and also verify the undertaking that the appointment has been made not against any supernumerary post. Eventhough such an undertaking was submitted by the Manager the post was W.P.(c) No. 27316/2012 -6- found to be supernumerary one on the basis of information received from the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam. Hence the denial of salary is justified according to the 2nd respondent.
5. Legal position on the issue remains settled as per the decisions cited above. Since the appointment was already approved by the University, the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to deny salary. It is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was made against a post sanctioned by the Government and such appointment was made after conducting proper selection. The objection now raised based on an allegation that there is an excess teacher working in another college within another university cannot be taken as a ground to deny salary to the petitioner. This is especially in view of the fact that such a contention had already been negatived by this court in Ext.P10 judgment. It is pertinent to note that the University had submitted reply to the 3rd respondent clarifying the position regarding availability of the vacancy, as per Annexure-R5 (d). Therefore there is no justification for non- W.P.(c) No. 27316/2012 -7- approval of the appointment for the purpose of payment of salary.
6. Under the above mentioned circumstances this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 7th respondent to forward the salary bill for payment of salary due to the petitioner from 17-06-2010 onwards. The 3rd respondent will take necessary steps to approve the salary and to make payment of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such bill. Arrears of salary due from 17-06-2010 onwards shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 2 months thereafter.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge