Dr. Ashley Susan Philip, Lecturer and Others vs The Manager, Mar Thoma College and Others

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in Mar Thoma College, Thiruvalla. They were selected and appointed on the basis of the recommendation made by the statutory Selection Committee consisting of the nominees of the Government and the University, as evidenced by Ext.P1. It is stated that based on the recommendations of the statutory Selection Committee, the petitioners were appointed with effect from 16.1.2008, 17.1.2008, 23.1.2008, 29.7.2008, 6.8.2008, 21.8.2008 and 21.8.2008 respectively. The appointments of the petitioners were approved by the University as per orders dated 11.2.2009, 14.10.2009 and 14.10.2009.

Though the salary bills of the petitioners were submitted to the Deputy Director, Ext.P5 objections were raised with regard to the first petitioner''s appointment and the same was returned on the ground that prior concurrence of the Government was not obtained for making appointment.The Principal sent Ext.P5(a) reply to Ext.P5 objections. Still, the salary bills were not honoured. Another objection was raised as evidenced by Ext.P6 also, to which the Principal sent a reply.

Similar objection as raised in the case of the first petitioner were raised in the case of the other petitioners also. The result is that though the petitioners were duly appointed and though the University approved their appointments, the petitioners are not getting salary right from 2008.

The question of law involved in the Writ Petition is well settled in favour of the petitioners in Cherian Mathew v. Principal S.B. College, Changanassery (1998(2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355). In Cherian Mathew''s case, it was held that a teacher whose appointment is approved by the University, should be paid the salary by the Government. It was also held that in case the Director of Collegiate Education doubts the propriety of the appointment of a teacher in the sense that the work load did not require the appointment of such a teacher, the issue will have to be taken up by him with the University. The University has to re-examine the entire issue and to take a decision on the issue as to whether the appointment was proper or not. It was also held that when the University takes a decision on that aspect, that decision will be binding on the Government.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 in Shalini Rachels case read as follows:

Scope of Section 57(2) of the Kerala University Act has to be tested in the light of the above mentioned statutory provisions. Power of the University in granting approval as well as sanctioning posts after ascertaining the work load and fixation of staff pattern as per the Statues has not been taken away by the University Amendment Act 2 of 2005. Clear cut provisions have been made in the University Statues and Ordinances as to how the work load has to be assessed and staff strength fixed so as to avoid unnecessary appointments. Further the interest of the students is also to be safeguarded by appointing sufficient number of teachers without delay. Power is also conferred on the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter with the University in case there is any doubt with the approval granted. In appropriate cases, Government can also examine the action taken by the Deputy Director and address the University through him.

We have no reason to think that an august body like Syndicate or the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education would act arbitrarily or against public interest while exercising powers statutorily conferred on them. Sub-s.(1) of Section 57 only says that appointments to the posts eligible to receive salary from the Government shall be made only after getting prior sanction from or from such officers authorised by the Government. For filling up the posts sanctioned by the University on the basis of work load or staff pattern, no prior permission of the Government is necessary. Once Syndicate of the University grants approval for filling up the existing vacancies depending upon the work load and staff pattern Government is obliged to pay salary of the teachers appointed by duly constituted Selection Committee. If Government or its officers find that the approval was granted by the University illegally it can always take up the matter before the University or other forums so that public interest will not suffer. Section 57 (1) was introduced not to take away the statutory powers already conferred on the Syndicate of the University. Principle laid down in Cherian Mathew''s case, supra in our view, still holds good. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to affirm the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.C. No. 12109 of 2006 and dismiss W.A. No. 940 of 2007.

In view of the authoritative pronouncements mentioned above, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition.Accordingly, Exts.P5, P6, P7 and P7(a) are quashed.The petitioners shall be paid their salary including arrears of salary. The arrears of salary shall be paid within a period of three months. The respondents should see that the salary of the petitioners from the month of November,2010 onwards is paid without any objection.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that the right of respondents 3 to 5 to address the University about their objections to the approval of appointment of the petitioners may be reserved, as observed in Cherian Mathew''s case. It is so reserved. However, such reservation should not stand in the way of implementation of the directions contained in the preceding paragraphs.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.