Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Augustine Sumesh C.J on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 1510 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2022 IN WP(C) NO.13475 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2, 3 & 4 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682011
BY ADV NISHA BOSE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 5 IN WPC:
1 AUGUSTINE SUMESH C.J.
AGED 37 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, ST.ALBERTS
COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682018
2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS
P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560.
2
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
3 THE MANAGER,
ST.ALBERTS COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-
682018.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SHRI.J.OM PRAKASH
SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT
SHRI.EMMANUAL SANJU
SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, MG UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2025 ALONG WITH
WA 1547 OF 2023, THE COURT ON 8.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 1547 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2022 IN WP(C) NO.920 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 & 6 TO 8 IN WPC:
1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682011
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
5 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
6 TREASURY OFFICER,
ADDITIONAL SUB TREASURY, PARK AVENUE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERENAKULAM 682 011
BY ADV.NISHA BOSE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
4
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 5 IN WPC:
1 AUGUSTINE SUMESH C.J.
AGED 37 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, ST.
ALBERTS COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, PIN -
682018
2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O,
KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686560
3 THE MANAGER,
ST. ALBERTS COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,, PIN -
682018
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SHRI.J.OM PRAKASH
SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT
SHRI.EMMANUAL SANJU
SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, MG UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 24.09.2025 ALONG WITH
WA 1510 OF 2023, THE COURT ON 8.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
W.A.No.1510 of 2023 is filed by respondents 2, 3, and 4 in
W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020 and W.A.No.1547 of 2023 is filed by
respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 in W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020, under
Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act 1958, challenging the
common judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in those writ petitions.
2. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020,
from which the above writ appeal arose, the 1 st respondent was
appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at
St.Albert's College, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, in one of the
retirement vacancies notified as per Ext.P1 notification dated
10.10.2012, with effect from 20.12.2013, under the community
quota, by Ext.P3 appointment order. Immediately after the
appointment of the 1st respondent, the Principal of the College
submitted the proposal to the Mahatma Gandhi University ('M.G.
University', in short) for granting approval to the appointment. In
the Department of Physics, there have been 155 hours of workload
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
and 10 sanctioned posts as per Ext.P7 and P7 (a) workload
statements dated 01.11.2011 and 01.11.2012, respectively.
There had been 10 teachers in the department till the retirement
of 3 teachers, the vacancy to which the 1st respondent and two
other teachers were appointed in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification.
By Ext.P9 letter dated 16.09.2014, M.G. University refused to
grant approval to the appointment of the 1st respondent, stating
the reason that the workload is not supportive for the 10 th faculty.
On receiving Ext.P9 letter, the Principal of the College submitted
Ext.P10 representation dated 18.12.2014 to the Vice Chancellor
of the University seeking intervention in the matter. It was pointed
out in Ext.P10 that by Ext.P11 letter dated 16.06.2013, while
nominating the Government nominee to the Statutory Selection
Committee, the Government accorded sanction for filling up three
vacancies in the Department of Physics.
2.1. The 1st respondent further states that even as per the
UGC norms, for 155 hours of workload calculated at 16 hours per
teacher, there will be 128 hours for 8 teachers and 12 hours for
the Head of the department, leaving a balance of 15 hours for the
10th teacher. As per M.G. University Ordinances, for every
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
additional 6 hours and above, one post is to be sanctioned. Though
the 1st respondent was working on the basis of the appointment
order issued with effect from 20.12.2013, he has not been paid
salary for want of approval by the University. Therefore, the 1 st
respondent, along with the Manager of the College, filed
W.P.(C)No.18175 of 2015 before this Court, to quash Ext.P9 order
to the extent it declares that there was no sufficient workload for
the 10th faculty and to approve his appointment and for other
consequential reliefs. By Ext.P14 judgment dated 24.10.2016, this
Court disposed of that writ petition directing the University to
provisionally approve the appointment of the 1 st respondent.
Certain other consequential directions were also issued in that
judgment.
2.2. Pursuant to Ext.P14 judgment, the Principal of the
College sent Ext.P15 letter dated 28.10.2016 to the M.G.
University, requesting to approve the post of the 1 st respondent as
Assistant Professor in Physics and also to speed up the procedure
of workload calculation and fixation of staff in the Department of
Physics. Since the direction in Ext.P14 judgment was not complied
with, the 1st respondent filed Con.Case (Cl) No.263 of 2017. By
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
Ext.P15 (a) judgment dated 02.08.2017, this Court closed the
contempt case, recording the submission of the respondents
therein that the directions have been complied with. The 1 st
respondent then filed Ext.P16 and P16(a) petitions dated
19.11.2019 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, for
the copies of the orders dated 20.11.2017 and 12.01.2018,
pursuant to which he was issued with Exts.P17 (a) and P17 (b)
copies of those Government orders dated 20.11.2017 and
12.01.2018, respectively, with Ext.P17 covering letter dated
11.12.2019. From Ext.P17 (a), it is clear that the Government has
directed conditional approval to the appointment of the 1 st
respondent in the 10th vacancy and permanent approval in the 9 th
vacancy when the said vacancy arises. So also, it is clear from
Ext.P17(b) that direction was given by the Government that till
the permanent approval of the 1 st respondent is given in the 9 th
vacancy, salary till that date be disbursed, and to recover it from
the funds of the Manager.
2.3. The 1st respondent later came to know about Ext.P18
order dated 18.09.2017 issued by the M.G. University and also
Ext.P20 letter dated 01.12.2017 issued by the Deputy Director of
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
Collegiate Education. As per Ext.P18 order, approval was given by
the University for the appointment of the 1st respondent in the 10th
vacancy from 20.12.2013 in the retirement vacancy of an
Associate Professor, which arose on 30.06.2008. On the basis of
Ext.P18 order, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education issued
Ext.P20 letter dated 01.12.2017 to the Principal of the College,
intimating that conditional approval has been granted to the
appointment of the 1st respondent in the 10th vacancy with effect
from 20.12.2013 and also that it be converted as permanent
approval in the 9th vacancy as and when it arises. The 3rd
appellant again sent Ext.P21 letter dated 30.08.2019 to the
Principal of the College to issue suitable consequential orders.
Similarly, the University has sent Ext.P22 letter dated 30.08.2019
to the Manager of the College, reminding him of the necessity to
issue suitable consequential orders. Thereafter, the Manager of
the College has sent Ext.P23 reply dated 27.11.2019 to the
University stating that the appointment given to the 1st respondent
was as per the Rules. With these averments, the 1 st respondent
filed W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following relief:
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or
direction directing the Respondents to disburse the arrears
of salary and other benefits to the petitioner from the date
of his appointment, from 20.12.2013 to October 2017 in
view of Ext. P14 judgment, and Exts.P17 (a), P17(b), as
also, P19 and P20 Orders and also, to re-fix his current pay
and all service benefits on that basis, and disburse all these
benefits, within a time frame;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or
direction, commanding the respondents to pay interest at
12% for the delayed payment of arrears of salary and other
benefits till payment, as the non- payment was deliberate
or on silly untenable reasons;
(iii) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to his arrears of
pay and all other benefits from 20.12.2013 including re-
fixation of his pay on that basis, and to get all these benefits
disbursed within a time frame, in view of the orders and
judgment mentioned above which are due to him, with
interest at 12% till payment".
2.4. In the writ petition, the 3rd appellant filed a counter
affidavit dated 26.02.2020, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to
R4(e) documents. In that counter affidavit, it was inter alia
contended that as directed by this Court, the 1 st respondent was
given salary from the Government exchequer from November
2017 onwards. Though he claims salary from 20.12.2013
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
onwards, there was no approved vacancy by the Government, and
the Government cannot disburse salary to a person appointed by
the management to a non-sanctioned post. In Ext.P14 judgment,
this Court held that the syndicate of the University has the power
to appoint teachers of aided colleges, subject to the conditions
that those appointments are subject to the staff pattern fixed by
the University and that persons are fully qualified. But for granting
approval, a workload study was not done by the M.G. University.
Though the 1st respondent is eligible to be appointed with effect
from 01.04.2017, the University has not regularised the
appointments with effect from that date, and hence the 1 st
respondent is handicapped to disburse the salary for 7 months
from 01.04.2017 to October 2017. Though the 1 st respondent was
appointed by the Manager on 20.12.2013, there was no
sanctioned post, and he could be appointed in the sanctioned post
only on a retirement vacancy which arose on 01.04.2017.
2.5. To the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd appellant, the
1st respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 02.03.2020.
2.6. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a statement was filed
on 25.02.2022. It was contended in that statement that, as per
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
UGC Regulations 2010, for 147 hours/week of workload, 10
teachers including 7 Associate Professors, are permissible. But as
per Post Adalath Review of 2002 and G.O. No.260/2010/HEdn, the
Government has sanctioned only 9 posts in the Department of
Physics of St. Albert's College, Ernakulam. This was intimated to
the Manager of the College vide Ext.P18 letter dated 25.07.2017.
Therefore, the contention of the 1st respondent that, as per Ext.P7,
there are 155 hours of workload and 10 posts is untenable. The
1st respondent was well aware of this fact and has produced
Ext.P18 along with the writ petition.
2.7. To this statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent,
the 1st respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 07.03.2022 along
with an interlocutory application by producing Exts.P25 to P29
documents.
2.8. Over and above the pleadings in W.P.(C)No.920 of
2020, in W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020 the 1st respondent further
pleaded that the M.G. University has issued Ext.P23 letter dated
26.04.2020 directing the Manager to re-assign the date of
appointment of certain teachers in Physics and Chemistry
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
departments including that of the 1st respondent as has been
directed by the Government in the order dated 12.01.2018. It is
stated in Ext.P23 letter that the explanation dated 27.11.2019
given by the Manager was considered by the Sub-committee on
approval of the Syndicate, and has decided, as per its minutes
dated 03.03.2020, that the salary of such teachers will have to be
withheld if the Government direction of reassignment of
appointments as stated in the letter is not complied with. On that
basis, direction is also given in Ext.P23 letter to submit new
appointment orders, re-assigning the appointment of the 1 st
respondent and others, from subsequent dates as proposed
urgently. Ext.P24 letter dated 08.02.2019 of the M.G. University
referred in Ext.P23 is an earlier letter which also directed the
Manager to re-assign the appointment of the 1 st respondent, as
per the Government direction. Though the 1 st respondent has
submitted Ext.P25 application dated 24.06.2020 for a copy of the
minutes dated 03.03.2020 of the sub-committee for approval of
the syndicate, which decision has been communicated by Ext.P23,
the same has not been issued to him. Contending that Ext.P23
letter and the decision of the sub committed dated 03.03.2020
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
communicated through that letter as illegal and it shall not affect
the right of the 1st respondent to receive salary and all other
benefits from 20.12.2013 onwards as directed in Ext.P14
judgment and consequential orders, the 1 st respondent filed
W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or
direction, quashing Ext.P23 and also, the decision dated
03.03.2020 of sub-committee on approval of the syndicate
of R1, which is communicated through Ext.P23, being
patently illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or
direction, commanding the respondents to grant approval to
the petitioner's appointment unconditionally from
20.12.2013, as it was made against a substantive
retirement vacancy and as there was sufficient workload and
also, to disburse all service benefits, including arrears,
despite the remarks in Ext.P16(a), P18, P19,P20,P21, P23,
P24, as the petitioner's case is covered by Ext.P14 and
Ext.P15(a) judgments and consequential orders.
(iii) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get approval
to his appointment from 20.12.2013 and all service benefits
and arrears of salary from that date, despite the remarks in
Ext.P16(а), Р18, Р19, P20, P21, P23 and P24, as the issue
relating to the petitioner's appointment had become final in
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
view of Ext.P14 and P15(a) judgments and consequential
orders on workload and approval issued by competent
authorities".
2.9. The 3rd appellant filed a counter affidavit dated
25.08.2020 in W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020 and an additional counter
affidavit dated 04.04.2022 producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to
R4(f) documents. Apart from reiterating the contentions raised in
W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020, the 3rd appellant further stated in his
counter affidavit that the 3rd appellant directed the management
to submit the required proposals in consonance with the directions
of the Government. Prior to the receipt of the letter dated
30.08.2019 itself, the 3rd appellant sent a letter to the Manager
directing him to grant arrears of salary amount to the 1 st
respondent for the years 2013-2017. The Manager issued a letter
dated 29.02.2020 refusing to do so. Even though the Principal
submitted a salary statement of the 1 st respondent for the period
between 20.12.2013 to 31.03.2017, it was not accompanied by
the revised appointment order or orders of the University
approving the same.
2.10. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
materials on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petitions. In W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020, the Government is directed
to act strictly in terms of Ext.P14 judgment and to issue
appropriate orders approving the appointment of the 1 st
respondent with effect from the date on which he was appointed,
that is, from 20.12.2013, and to grant him all relevant benefits
pursuant thereto within a period of three months. In
W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020, Ext.P23 order issued by the M.G.
University is set aside. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed these
writ appeals. For convenience of reference, we are referring the
parties to these writ appeals as they are in W.A. No. 1547 of 2023,
and documents are referred to as in W.P.(C)No. 920 of 2020 unless
otherwise stated.
3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned Standing
Counsel for M.G. University and the learned counsel appearing for
the 3rd respondent Manager.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that the liability of the Government to pay salary is only against
the appointments made in the sanctioned post as per the relevant
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
provisions of the University Act. The Government made it clear in
Exts.P17 (a) and (b) that the appointment of the 1 st respondent
be given conditional approval from 20.12.2013 in the 10 th vacancy,
and it be converted as permanent approval in the 9 th vacancy as
and when the vacancy arose in the 9 th post. The salary from the
date of appointment be given and it is to be recovered from the
funds of the Manager. Even if there is sufficient workload for a
post, the Manager or the University cannot make the appointment
unless there is a sanctioned post. Even in a sanctioned post with
sufficient workload, the Managers should seek permission from
the Government before making a fresh appointment, as the
Government is the pay master. As per M.G. University Act Section
59(1), the Government is bound to disburse salary only to those
appointees who are appointed in the post duly sanctioned by the
Government. Creation of post is the wisdom of the Government.
The court shall not issue any direction to create the post with
retrospective or prospective effect. The impugned judgment was
passed by the learned Single Judge without considering these
crucial aspects.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
respondent argued that Ext.P14 is an inter-party judgment passed
by this court in W.P.(C)No.18175 of 2015, and the appellants
cannot escape from the directions issued in that judgment. From
Ext.P29 Government order dated 03.06.2021, it is evident that the
Government has created a post in a similar situation. The 1 st
respondent is entitled to salary arrears from the date of his
provisional appointment in the 10 th post. Now the Government has
initiated steps to recover the salary paid to the 1 st respondent, and
the same is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020. The
learned Single Judge correctly analysed the facts based on Ext.P14
judgment, and no interference is needed by this Court by
exercising appellate jurisdiction.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University
submitted that, as per Section 59 (1) of the M.G. University Act,
the appointment can be made only against a sanctioned post.
Therefore, the University is supporting the stand of the
Government. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Manager,
submitted that the college is supporting the 1 st respondent, and
the University has not conducted the workload study even though
directed in Ext.P14 judgment.
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
7. In State of Kerala v. Anas N. [2025 (6) KHC 1], a
Full Bench of this Court, while answering the reference whether
Government sanction is required for approval for appointment in
private aided colleges affiliated to University, held thus :
"17. From the foregoing discussion, we deduce the law
relating to sanction and approval of posts as follows:
i. We affirm the proposition of law laid down in Poornima
(supra), subject to the rider that no sanction of the
Government is required if the post does not exceed the
strength of posts already created in the College as on the
date of the 2005 amendment. However, if the post sought
to be approved would result in an excess over the posts
sanctioned as of 2005, the University cannot approve unless
new posts are created by the Government.
ii. Upon workload assessment, the University is duty - bound
to examine whether the post for which approval is sought,
either on account of the introduction of a new course or
otherwise, would fall within or exceed the strength of posts
already created in the college as on the date of the 2005
amendment. The University shall not grant approval if, in its
opinion, the appointment would exceed the number of posts
created as of that date.
iii. In respect of posts that do not exceed the strength of
created posts, the University is competent to approve
appointments without any further sanction from the
Government, provided it is satisfied, on workload
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
assessment, that the appointment is justified.
iv. Workload assessment is mandatory for both creation of
posts and approval of appointments, and such assessment
shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the UGC
Regulations.
v. Based on workload assessment before 2005, if any post
stood reduced, such post shall nevertheless be deemed to
continue in existence unless it has been expressly abolished
by the approving authority. For future approval, no sanction
of the Government is required in respect of such posts,
provided they have not been abolished by the approving
authority, and the workload assessment justifies approval of
appointments to them.
vi. Based on workload assessment, if a new post is required
to be created, the University shall forward the proposal to
the Government and shall permit colleges to engage
teachers on a daily or contract basis till a decision is taken
by the Government on the creation of posts. The
Government shall take a decision on the proposal within a
reasonable time without delay in the light of the UGC
regulation that discourages employing teachers on a
contract basis". (Underline supplied)
8. The 1st respondent was appointed in St.Albert's
College, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, as an Assistant Professor in
Physics by Ext.P3 appointment order dated 20.12.2013.
Admittedly, it is in the 10 th post; the appointment was made by
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
the manager of the college. According to the 1st respondent, there
is a sanctioned 10th post in the physics department and therefore,
the appointment of the 1st respondent has to be approved from
that date, and he is entitled to salary and other service benefits.
But according to the Government, there were only 9 sanctioned
posts in the college. The 1st respondent was provisionally
appointed in the 10th post. The approved vacancy for the
appointment of the 1st respondent arose only in the month of
October 2017 due to the retirement of a teacher, and the Deputy
Director granted approval for the appointment of the 1 st
respondent with effect 01.12.2017.
9. By Ext.P14 judgment, which is an inter-party
judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of that
writ petition with the following directions:
"(i) The 1st respondent University shall provisionally approve
the appointment of the 2nd petitioner, who was appointed,
pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, by Ext.P3 appointment order
dated 20.12.2013.
(ii)It shall be open to the 1 st respondent University to
conduct a workload study pertaining to the academic years
in question, and to complete the staff fixation in accordance
with the said workload study done by the respondent
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
University. The respondent University shall endeavour to
complete the said exercise within three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(iii) The 2nd petitioner shall, based on the provisional
approval to his appointment as Assistant Professor in the
Department of Physics, be paid the monthly salary from the
current month onwards. It is made clear, however, that his
entitlement to receive salary and other allowances attached
to the post of Assistant Professor will be subject to the
outcome of the workload study and staff fixation conducted
by the 1st respondent University, within the time frame
indicated above.
(iv) If on the completion of the work load study and the staff
fixation in the 1st petitioner college, the 2nd petitioner's
appointment is entitled to an approval, then the 2 nd
petitioner shall be paid the arrears of salary and other
allowances that flow from such approval within a further
period of four months from the date of approval by the 1 st
respondent University.
(v)The 4th respondent shall take note of the directions in
this judgment and shall commence the payment of
provisional salary to the 2nd petitioner on monthly basis
forthwith, and shall disburse the arrears of salary and other
allowances, if found due and payable to the 2 nd petitioner
consequent to the approval, if any, granted by the 1 st
respondent University, within four months from the grant of
approval by the 1st respondent University".
(Underline supplied)
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
10. Section 59 (1) of the M.G University Act reads thus:
"59(1). Appointment of teachers in private Colleges.
Appointments to the posts eligible to receive salary from the
Government shall be made only against posts sanctioned by the
Government or by such officers as may be authorized by the
Government".
11. From the judgment in Anas. N [2025 (6) KHC 1] and
from the provision referred to supra, it is clear that the liability of
the Government to pay salary and other benefits to a teacher
appointed in an aided college arises only from the date of his/her
approved appointment in the sanctioned post. It is true that in
Ext.P18 University letter dated 25.7.2017, it is stated that, as per
the workload, 10 teaching posts are permissible in the Physics
department. But only for the said reason, it cannot be said that
there were 10 sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors in Physics
available in the college. In Ext.P14 judgement also no specific
direction was given to the effect that the Government has to
sanction the 10th post with retrospective effect on completion of
the workload study by the University.
12. In such circumstances, we find no reason to hold that
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
the liability of the Government to pay salary to the 1st respondent
arises from his provisional appointment on 20.12.2013. In Exts.
P17 (a) and (b) orders, the Government made it clear that the
appointment of the 1st respondent be given conditional approval
from 20.12.2013 in the 10th vacancy and be converted as
permanent approval in the 9th vacancy as and when the vacancy
arises in the 9th post. It was further directed to pay salary to the
1st respondent until his permanent appointment is approved in the
9th post and recover it from the manager. Therefore, the liability
to pay salary to the 1st respondent from 20.12.2013 till approval
of the appointment of the 1 st respondent in the 9th vacancy on
01.12.2017 is on the Manager. Therefore, we find no ground to
sustain the impugned judgment.
13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and submissions made at the Bar, we find that the learned
single judge failed to properly analyse the materials on record and
the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the provisions
governing the field, while passing the impugned judgment.
Therefore, the writ appeals are to be allowed by setting aside the
impugned judgment.
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
In the result, the writ appeals are allowed by setting aside
the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2022, passed by the learned
single judge in W.P.(C)Nos. 920 and 13745 of 2020, and the writ
petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA 1240/2020
WA Nos.1510 and 1547 of 2023 2025:KER:73718
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA 1240/2020
