Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: CREATION OF POST in The Chief Secretary To Government vs Vinil Varghese on 5 November, 2025Matching Fragments
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The respondents in W.P.(C)No.2061 of 2018 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. The respondent, who is the Manager of S.E.S. College, Sreekandapuram in Kannur District, affiliated to Kannur University, approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.2061 of 2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the non-sanctioning of required teaching staff to the college. By Ext.P19, Government order dated 05.01.2018, the request of the respondent was rejected, stating the reason that the State is facing a severe financial crunch. The respondent contends that as per Ext.P1 order dated 12.09.2013, the Government sanctioned one P.G. course (M.C.J.) and one U.G. course (B.C.A) at his college during the academic year 2013-14. By Ext.P2 order dated 23.05.2014, the Kannur University granted provisional affiliation to M.C.J (25 seats) and B.C.A (25 seats) in self financing stream for the academic year 2013-14. The Government by Ext.P3 order 2025:KER:84908 dated 03.07.2014, allowed the request of the Principal of the College to start the new aided course of B.Com Co-operation with 40 seats in lieu of the already sanctioned B.C.A vide Ext.P1 order from the academic year 2014-15. Accordingly, the Kannur University granted provisional affiliation to B.Com Co-operation with an intake of 40 students during the academic year 2014-15 by Ext.P4 order dated 08.08.2014. Pursuant to the creation of teaching posts in various colleges, vide Ext.P5 order dated 20.04.2015 of the Government and Ext.P6 direction dated 14.08.2015 of the Director of Collegiate Education to submit proposals for creation of posts in aided colleges, the Principal of the respondent college assessed the existing work load in the college in each department and submitted a proposal to the Government requesting to sanction five posts of Assistant Professors in M.C.J., two posts in B.Com and two additional posts in Electronics through proper channel. The respondent produced the aforesaid Ext.P7 proposal submitted by the Principal and countersigned by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, dated 26.11.2015, in the writ petition. The respondent contends that Kannur University has assessed the workload and forwarded 2025:KER:84908 the same by way of Ext.P7(a) proforma dated 22.07.2015. The respondent later approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.12297 of 2017, seeking a direction against the Government to consider Ext.P7 proposal and to create the posts mentioned in that proposal. By Ext.P16 judgment dated 06.04.2017, this Court disposed of that writ petition with a direction to the Government to take a decision in Ext.P7 proposal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. The time fixed for taking a decision by the Government was later extended for another two months by Ext.P17 order dated 13.09.2017 in an interlocutory application filed in that writ petition. However, later the Government passed Ext.P19 order impugned in the writ petition, declining the creation of posts recommended by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. Hence, the respondent filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs;
iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to fill up the posts in accordance with the workload assessed by the Principal and countersigned by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in terms of the University statute without waiting for Govt. orders of post creation;"
3. In the writ petition, the 1st appellant filed a statement dated 28.02.2018, contending that the State is undergoing a severe financial crunch at present and hence it cannot shoulder additional financial burden now. Therefore, all the proposals for post creation in aided colleges are kept pending for the time being. It is further stated by the 1st appellant that the Government has permitted to engage guest lecturers for the newly sanctioned courses, so as to manage the classes without interrupting the benefits of the student community. The Government will consider all the proposals for post creation when the financial position becomes better.
[Underline supplied]
9. Similarly, in Anas N. [2025 (6) KHC 1], this Court, while considering the issue of creation of new posts and engagement of teachers on contract basis, held thus;
"14. In Poornima (supra), the Division Bench held that the sanctioning of new teaching posts cannot relate to the date of appointment. As we have already observed, the power to sanction is the exclusive prerogative of the Government after the amendment. The mere introduction of a new course does not, by itself, result in the creation or 2025:KER:84908 sanctioning of a new post. Commencement of a course is conceptually distinct from the sanctioning of a post. While the authority to sanction posts rests with the Government, approval of appointments must be based on workload assessment carried out by the University. Where the introduction of a new course necessitates the creation of additional posts, the University must first ascertain whether such posts fall within the cadre strength or staff pattern already sanctioned as on the date of the 2005 amendment. If the posts so required are in excess of the sanctioned strength, no approval can be granted by the University without prior sanction from the Government. 14.1. As seen from the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2018, the workload of an Assistant Professor is 16 hours per week, while that of a Professor/Associate Professor is 14 hours per week. Regulation 13.0 of the UGC Regulations, which deals with appointments on a contract basis, specifically stipulates that such appointments are permitted only when absolutely necessary. We note the arguments of some of the respondents. They contend that, if the view in Poornima (supra) is followed, the Government would delay the proposal for the creation of a post, to the detriment of students enrolled in a new course. They further argue that, once the University undertakes a workload assessment and submits a proposal for the creation of new posts, the Government is obliged to sanction the post without delay.
15. Thus, the principle that emerges is this: while the University is the authority to assess workload and approve appointments, the creation of posts beyond the sanctioned strength after the 2005 amendment remains within the exclusive domain of the Government.
16. We expect that the Government, to avoid confusion regarding approval of appointments, will undertake an exercise to fix the number of posts as on the date of the 2005 amendment. The workload assessment is only for the creation of a post or for the limited purpose of determining whether approval of an appointment can be granted or not;