Kerala High Court
Dr.Veena J vs University Of Calicut on 28 July, 2025
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23383 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
DR.VEENA J
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF HINDI,
NPMMSN TRUSTS COLLEGE,SHORNUR-2,PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHPURAM-695001.
2 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O,
KOZHIKODE.
3 CORPORATE MANAGER
SREE NARAYANA TRUST,P.O.NO.63,
KOLLAM-691001.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
2
4 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THRISSUR,PIN-680001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL
SHRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
SHRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
ADV.P.C.SASIDHARAN]
ADV.AKSHAY VENU ]SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV RASHMI K M, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).28517/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28517 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER,
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF SREE NARAYANA COLLEGES,
SREE NARAYANA TRUSTS, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL
SHRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM -695 001.
2 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.,KOZHIKODE, PIN -673 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM -695 001.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
4
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THRISSUR - 691 001.
5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
6 DR. VEENA J.
ASST.PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI,
M.P.M.M. S.N.TRUST COLLEGE, SHORNUR II,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.
7 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RPERESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).23383/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
5
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Issue involved in both these writ petitions are one and the
same and hence they are being disposed of by this common
judgment. W.P.(C)No.23383/2016 is taken as the lead case for
the purpose of referring to the parties and documents.
2. Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor
in Hindi in response to notice issued by the 2 nd respondent and
being qualified she was appointed as Assistant Professor in
MPMMSN Trust College, Shornur. She joined service on
22.10.2012. Her appointment was approved by the 1 st
respondent University by Ext.P7 order dated 19.12.2013. The
workload assessed for Hindi in the college was 14 and the
number of teachers permissible at the relevant time was one.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
3. Petitioner's probation was declared with effect from
22.10.2013 by an order dated 19.02.2014, issued by the 2 nd
respondent. By Ext.P9 dated 03.05.2014 the salary bill was
rejected by the 5th respondent. Reason stated in Ext.P9 was that
excess teachers were working in the same department in
colleges under the same management within the jurisdiction of
the Deputy Director, Ernakulam. By Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent
informed the 5th respondent that there were no excess staff in
Hindi in any of the colleges under the said management.
4. Ext.P12 is the minutes of the meeting held on
18.11.2014, convened by the Additional Director of Collegiate
Education. Issue of approval of appointments made by the 3 rd
respondent in various colleges was discussed in the meeting.
Regarding S.N.College, Cherthala it was stated in the minutes
that from 12.03.1997 two lecturers were drawing salary though
only 22 hours were available for Hindi. Workload of one lecturer
was 16 hours and only 6 hours were remaining, for which a
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
second post could not be sanctioned. Therefore it was observed
that the second lecturer was continuing in a supernumerary
post. Further, it was decided that approval of appointment will
be granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.06.2015
pursuant to the retirement of the lecturer continuing on a
supernumerary post in the Hindi department of S.N.College,
Cherthala on 31.03.2015. It was also decided that salary till
1.6.2015 shall be paid by the management.
5. Petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.23383/2016 aggrieved by
the decision. The 3rd respondent management filed W.P.
(C)No.28517/2016 challenging the minutes produced as Ext.P12
in the former writ petition. Direction to the official respondents
to disburse the arrears of salary of the petitioner from
22.10.2012 to 31.05.2015 was also sought. The 4 th respondent
filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.23383/2016. University filed
separate counter affidavits in both cases. Petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.23383/2016 filed her counter affidavit in
W.P.(C)No.28517/2016.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
6. Heard Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi.K.M., learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 4 and 5,
Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd
respondent University and Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy. Sufficient
workload was available in the college for sanctioning a post of
Assistant Professor in Hindi. Petitioner was duly qualified and
was selected. Her appointment was approved by the University
by Ext.P7 with effect from the date of joining. The learned
counsel submitted that this Court in various judgments has
categorically held that once the University grants approval,
Government cannot take a different view in the case of
appointments in affiliated colleges. He therefore submitted that
the Government ought not to have refused to grant approval to
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
the petitioner. The learned counsel pointed out that the reason
stated by the Government was that in S.N.College, Cherthala
under the same management, an Assistant Professor was
continuing without sufficient workload. However, the said
appointment was approved and the incumbent was drawing
salary. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was
appointed in another college affiliated to a different University.
There is no case for the Government that sufficient workload
was not available in the said college. Competent authority to
approve the appointment is the University. Under such
circumstances, Government was not justified in citing
continuation of an Assistant Professor, allegedly in a
supernumerary post in a college under the same management
affiliated to a different University as a reason for denying
approval to the petitioner. The learned counsel further
contended that in S.N.College, Cherthala admittedly workload of
22 hours was available for Hindi. As provided under the Kerala
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
University first Ordinance, 1978 additional post can be created if
there is a minimum balance work of 6 hours for a subject.
Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the second Assistant
Professor in S.N.College, Cherthala ought to have been treated
as continuing in a sanctioned vacancy. Therefore, there was no
illegality in the appointment of the petitioner. He hence
submitted that in any view of the matter the respondents are
liable to be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the
remaining period.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the management
supported the contentions of the petitioner. He submitted that
the management invited application for appointment in the
college at Shornur affiliated to the Calicut University separately.
Selection committees were different for colleges under different
Universities. Workload was calculated and appointment was
made following the regulations and norms which prevailed at
the relevant time. University considered the appointment and
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
granted approval. Therefore, the Government ought to have
approved the appointment and paid salary to the petitioner. He
pointed out that the second Assistant Professor in S.N.College
Cherthala was being paid salary by the Government. He
submitted that if the Government had an opinion that the
continuation of the second Assistant Professor in the college at
Cherthala was not proper, action should have been taken with
respect to the same. Denying approval to an Assistant Professor
appointed in a different college where there was sufficient
workload was hence improper.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the University
submitted that there was sufficient workload in the college at
Shornur and hence the University granted approval for the
appointment of the petitioner. He submitted that the University
is concerned about the workload and staff requirement in
colleges affiliated to it. On being satisfied about the workload
requirement and the qualifications of the petitioner approval was duly
granted.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
10. The learned Senior Government Pleader contended
that the petitioner management was retaining an excess hand in
its college at Cherthala and the Government was paying salary.
She submitted that if there was a requirement in the college at
Shornur the management ought to have transferred the excess
hand at Cherthala to the said college. She submitted that by not
doing so and appointing the petitioner in the college at Shornur,
the management caused unjustifiable financial burden to the
Government. She submitted that the petitioner was granted
salary from 01.04.2013, as a vacancy to accommodate her
arose with effect from that date. She submitted that it is for the
management to pay salary for the remaining short period as the
situation was created by the management. The learned
Government Pleader placed reliance on a judgment of this Court
in W.A.No.1289/2015 arising from W.P.(C)No.9509/2014.
11. It is to be noted that though the prayer in the writ
petition was for directing the respondents to disburse the
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
arrears of salary from 22.10.2012 till 31.05.2015, after the 4th
respondent filed counter affidavit stating that a post to
accommodate the petitioner arose on 01.04.2013, this Court
passed an interim order on 19.08.2016 directing that the salary
for the period from 1.4.2013 to 30.6.2015 shall be disbursed to
the petitioner. The said order was complied with by the
Government. Therefore, now the remaining grievance is
confined to the period from 22.10.2012 to 31.3.2013.
12. The question to be considered is as to whether the
Government is justified in denying salary to the petitioner for
the period from 22.10.2012 to 31.3.2013. Reason stated by the
Government for refusing to grant approval to the appointment
of the petitioner is that another Assistant Professor was working
in a supernumerary post under the same management in
S.N.College, Cherthala. In this context it is relevant to note the
observation of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment
pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that treating a
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
teacher as supernumerary was not contemplated under the
provisions of the Kerala University Act, Statute or Ordinance. It
is to be noted that the said person was not denied salary by the
Government. Government has no case that the management
was directed to deploy the said person to any other college
where there is requirement.
13. It cannot be disputed that there was sufficient
workload for appointing the petitioner in the college at Shornur.
She was duly qualified and was properly appointed. Her
appointment was approved by the University with effect from
the date of joining. In Cherian Mathew v. Principal
S.B.College, Changanacherry [1998 (3) ILR 1] and Shalini
Rachel v. Manager, Christian Colleges [2007 (3) KLT 355]
this Court directed the authorities concerned to disburse salary
to the teachers whose appointments were approved by the
University. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.1289/2015 held that the responsibility of the
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
Government to pay salary arises only when the appointment is
made against sanctioned post. The Division Bench observed in
the said judgment that the Government is not bound to pay the
salary unless and until there is sufficient workload and the
approval is granted on the basis of such workload. In the case
at hand, indisputably, there was sufficient workload in the
college in which the petitioner was appointed. Her appointment
was approved by the authority concerned, the respondent
University. Hence, in my considered view, the Government
ought not to have refused to pay salary to the petitioner. If the
continuation of another Assistant Professor in S.N. College,
Cherthala was without approval and sufficient workload, the
Government need not have paid salary to the said incumbent.
But the petitioner cannot be denied salary as her appointment
was approved by the University with effect from the date of
joining. In my view, having not chosen to refuse to pay salary to
the excess hand in a different college affiliated to a different
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
University, the Government cannot be permitted to contend that
in the college where the petitioner was appointed, there was no
requirement to make a fresh appointment and to deny salary to
the petitioner on that ground. Therefore, I allow this writ
petition. Petitioner's salary for the period from 22.10.2012 to
31.03.2013 shall be paid to her by the Government within a
period of two months from the date of issuance of a copy of this
judgment. Competent among the respondents shall ensure
appropriate actions in this regard.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23383/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED
IN THE NEW SUNDAY EXPRESS DATED
26.02.2012 BY MANAGERM,SREE NARAYANA
COLLEGES,KOLLAM
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST
FOR LECTURERSHIP DATED 03.03.2011
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANT
COMMISSION TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED
20.09.2012
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.2/SNT/2848 DATED 17.10.2012 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.2/SNT/2851(III)DATED 17.10.2012
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
EXTHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REVISION FIXATION OF THE
STAFF STRENGTH IN THE MPMMSN TRUST
COLLEGE,SHORNUR
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER U.O.NO.6842/2013/CU
DATED 19.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2/SHOR/2583
DATED 19.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C6-282/14 DATED
3/5/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.5/399
DATED 23.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF WORKLOAD FOR THE YEAR
2014-2015 BASED ON THE STUDENT'S
STRENGTH AS ON 30.11.2014.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 18.11.2014 BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2015
IN W.P.(C)18722/2015 OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R4(a) COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
LETTER No.10028/D1/2011/H.Edn.
DATED 20.01.2016.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28517/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 20.9.2011
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.S.N.T.2/SHOR DATED 17.10.2012 ISSUED
BY THE PETITIONER TO 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISED FIXATION
OF STAFF STRENGTH IN THE MPMM SN TRUST
COLLEGE, SHORNUR
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER UO
NO.6842/2013/CU DATED 19.12.13
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER
NO.2/SHOR/2583 DATED 19.2.14 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6-
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.5/6/99 DATED 23.5.14
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WORKLOAD FOR THE
YEAR 2014-15 IN HINDI ON THE STUDENTS
STRENGTH AS PM 30.11.14
EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEETING HELD ON
18.11.14
EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
1.7.15 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHAPTER XIII
KERALA UNIVERSITY ORDINANCE 1978
EXHIBIT-P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER
NO.ACF.111/2/28993/2011 DATED 6.1.2012
EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 19.8.2016.
2025:KER:55884S
W.P.(C).Nos.23383 & 28517 of 2016
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6[a]. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.1.17 IN
WPC 24942 OF 2016 OF THE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
