Rekha Unni vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 4814 Ker

W.P.(C).No.28214/2020
                                    1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

 WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.28214 OF 2020(B)


PETITIONER:

                REKHA UNNI,
                AGED 39 YEARS
                D/O. UNNUNNI, KOCHUPLAMOOTTIL, KUMBANAD P.O.,
                (VIA), THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 547., (WORKING AS
                ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN CHEMISTRY, CHRISTIAN
                COLLEGE, CHANGANNOOR)

                BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

        1       THE MANAGER,
                CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNOOR,
                ANGADICAL, CHENGANNOOR,-689 122

        2       THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
                UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

        3       STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
                GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

        4       THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
                VIKAS BHAVAN,
                PMG JUNCTION,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
 W.P.(C).No.28214/2020
                                 2

        5       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
                VYSKARAKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001

                R2 BY SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
                KERALA
                R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BIJOY CHANDRAN

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-
02-2021, THE COURT ON 10-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.28214/2020
                                           3

                          ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       W.P.(C).No.28214 of 2020
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021
                              JUDGMENT

1. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"i) declare that MSC Analytical Chemistry course sanctioned/ granted affiliation in Christian College, Chenganoor, an Aided College are aided courses and hence Government is liable to pay salary to the Assistant Professors appointed by the Manager with effect from the date of appointment in accordance with the university statutes and ordinance.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the fifth respondent to grant concurrence and to disburse salary for the period which petitioner had worked ie., with effect from 25.1.2010 as per Ext.P8 approval order issued by the university except the salary already received by the petitioner.

iii)declare that the petitioner is a similar person like the petitioners in Ext.P9 and P10 judgments of this Honourable Court and she is also entitled to get similar benefits as granted by this Honourable Court in Exts.P9 and P10 judgments and also direct to disburse the salary from 25.1.2010, the date of appointment of the petitioner except the salary already received by her."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader and learned standing counsel appearing for the 2 nd

respondent.

W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in

Chemistry in the 1st respondent's college on 25.1.2010. It is

submitted that M.Sc. Analytical Chemistry course was

sanctioned to the college in the year 1998-1999. Affiliation

was also granted by the University to the said course on

8.4.1999. Sanction of the post was delayed due to de-linking

of Pre-degree courses from colleges. Workload assessment

was also issued by the University on 17.12.2009 and selection

was duly conducted and Exhibit P6 appointment order was

issued. The appointment was initially approved only from

20.8.2010. Thereafter, similarly situated teachers had

approached this Court and Exhibit P9 judgment was rendered

directing approval with effect from the date of the

appointment itself. The matter was taken up before the

Division Bench and the Apex Court and was affirmed by the

Apex Court by its decision reported in State of Kerala v.

Arun George [2015 (1) KLT 833 (SC)]. It is submitted that

the petitioner was unable to approach this Court along with

the other teachers, but by Exhibit P8 order, the University

revised the approval of the petitioner also and granted W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

approval with effect from 25.1.2010. Thereafter, on the

strength of Exhibits P9 and P10 judgments, representations

and proposals were forwarded to the Deputy Director of

Education for payment of the benefits due to the petitioner

from 25.1.2010 to 20.8.2010 on the basis of the revised

approval. However, no orders were rendered thereon.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the

appointment of the petitioner now stands approved with effect

from 25.1.2010 and since all similarly situated teachers had

drawn salary and all benefits on account of the approval of

appointment with effect from 25.1.2010, the same benefit is

liable to be extended to the petitioner as well.

5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent

contending that the petitioner is similarly situated as the

petitioners before this Court and the Apex Court in Exhibits P9

and P10 judgments and that the University has revised the

approval of the petitioner as well.

W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th respondent. It is

contended therein that approval is liable to be granted only

with effect from the date of sanction of the post and that the

Government had created the teaching post for the courses

sanctioned during 1998-2001, only with effect from 20.8.2010

and that the petitioner was entitled to get approval only from

that date. The decision of this Court in W.A.No.2164/2018 is

also produced as Exhibit R5(a) and is relied on in support of

his contention.

7. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the

petitioner stating that the decision produced as Exhibit R5(a)

has no application in the petitioner's case, since the petitioner

is identically situated as the petitioners in Exhibit P9 judgment

and that she is, therefore, entitled to the same treatment.

8. Having considered the contentions advanced on all sides, I

find that there is no difference between the factual situations

governing the petitioner herein and the petitioners in Exhibit W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

P9 before this Court. This Court as well as the Apex Court has

clearly held that the persons appointed in courses sanctioned

in the year 1998 to 2001 and who were appointed after a due

selection procedure on 25.1.2010 are eligible for approval of

their appointment from the said dates. Apparently, on the

basis of the said judgments, the University has also passed

revised orders approving the appointment of the petitioner

from her initial date of appointment.

9. In the above view of the matter and in the light of the fact that

all similarly situated teachers had been granted the benefit of

approval with effect from the initial date of appointment itself,

the 5th respondent cannot be now heard to contend that the

posts created in respect of courses sanctioned in 1998 were

sanctioned by the Government only on 20.8.2010. Since all

similarly situated teachers have been granted the benefit of

the revised approval, I am of the opinion that the petitioner,

who is identically situated, is also entitled to the said benefit. W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

10.In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to

the 5th respondent to grant concurrence and disburse salary to

the petitioner with effect from 25.1.2010 on the basis of

Exhibit P8 order and to grant all due benefits to the petitioner.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(MS) 134/98/H.EDN DATED 9.11.1998 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER NO.AC.B3/NEW COURSE/98 DATED 8.4.1999 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FOR RE-

ASSESSMENT OF WORK LOAD ON THE BASIS OF THE MEETING ON 18.12.2002

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACF III/1/13068/2009 DATED 17.12.2009 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 27.8.2009 OF CHRISTIAN COLLEGE , CHENGANNUR

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.CC-ACCTS 13/2009-10 DATED 25.1.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.ACF II/1/20522/10DATED 19.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.ACF II/1/20522/10DATED 26.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5196/2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 17.3.2015

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.695/2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 30.5.2016 W.P.(C).No.28214/2020

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.1.2020

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE COLLEGE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.2.2020

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.

2164/2018.

TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE