AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The 1st petitioner is the manager of an aided college and the petitioners 2 & 3 are Lecturers appointed by the 1st petitioner in his college. Their grievance in this writ petition is that although there is sufficient workload in the Commerce Department of the college, to accommodate the petitioners 2 & 3, the 1st respondent University is not approving the appointments made, on the ground that the course sanctioned for teaching which the petitioners 2 & 3 were appointed, was sanctioned with the condition that the expenditure thereof shall not exceed the budget allotment. According to the petitioners, the validity of such condition have been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Arun George, and this court has held that such conditions are unsustainable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
i) declare that B.Com degree course sanctioned vide Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) in St. Michael''s College, Cherthalai an Aided College is an aided course and hence Government is liable to pay salary to the teachers appointed by the Management, in accordance with University statutes and Ordinance;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the 1st respondent University to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioners 2 & 3 w.e.f. 18.3.2005 and 14.3.2005, respectively taking into account of the work load of the B.Com Degree Course sanctioned vide Exhibits P1 and P1(a) within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court;
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents 3 & 4 to disburse salary with arrears for the period which the petitioners 2 &3 had worked ie. w.e.f. 18.3.2005 and 14.3.2005, respectively, immediately on the grant of approval by the 1st Respondent University.
The standing counsel for the University submits that the University can approve the appointments made by the manager of an aided college, only if the posts to which appointments are made, have been sanctioned by the Government. In this case, since the sanctioning of the course itself was with the condition that the expenditure shall not exceed the budget allotment, for teaching which course only petitioners 2 & 3 have appointed, the University is not in a position to approve the appointment of the petitioners 2 & 3. The Government also takes the same stand.
I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The issue involved is no longer res integra, in so far as this is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Arun George''s case (supra) in favour of the teachers, wherein this Court has held that imposition of such conditions for sanctioning additional courses are unsustainable. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:
The 1st respondent shall consider the question of approval of the appointment of the petitioners 2 & 3 without reference to the condition in the order sanctioning the course that the course has been sanctioned on condition that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment, and if otherwise there is sufficient workload to accommodate the petitioners 2 & 3 and they have the required qualifications, the 1st respondent shall approve the appointments of the petitioners 2 & 3. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such approval, the Principal of the college shall forward the salary bill of the petitioners 2 & 3 to the 4th respondent who shall honour the same and disburse the salary to the petitioners 2 & 3 within one month from the date of receipt of the salary bill. However I make it clear that, this is subject to the right of the respondents 2 to 4 to take up the question of sufficiency of the workload with the 1st respondent or to challenge the validity of the approval so granted in appropriate proceedings.