## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR**
**TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938**
## **WP(C).No. 35754 of 2015 (T)**
**----------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S):**
## **-------------**
**REJIYA C.S. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (BIO CHEMISTRY), SREE AYYAPPA COLLEGE, ERAMALIKKARA**
## **BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
- **--------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA`**
- **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMEN, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001**
## **2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**
**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001**
**3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM 688001**
## **4. THE MANAGER**
**TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD COLLEGES, (SECRETARY), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001**
## **Addl. 5. THE PRINCIPAL**
**SREE AYYAPPA COLLEGE, ERAMALLIKKARA, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689 121.**
**ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.12.2015 IN I.A.NO.18194/2015**
**RADDL BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEEN JOSEPH R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR, SC, TDB R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF**
**KERALA R BY SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM R BY SRI.PAUL JACOB, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No. 35754 of 2015 (T)**
**----------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:**
**-----------------------**
**EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 12/7/12**
**EXT. P2: TRUE COPY THE WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT MAD BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA BY PROCEEDINGS NO. A.CF III/2/4143/12 DT. 22/8/12**
**EXT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 12/3/12**
**EXT. P4: TRUE COPY ORDER GO (MS) NO. 101/7 H.EDN DT. 21/7/07**
**EXT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT**
**EXT. P6: TRUE COPY THE COMMUNICATION DT. 28//3/14**
**EXT. P7: TRUE COPY THE REPRESENTATION DT. 27/5/14 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO TH E 1ST RESPONDENT**
**EXT. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 20/10/15**
**EXT. P9: TRUE COPY ORDER ROC NO. 8749/09/COLL/R.DIS DT. 19/11/15**
**EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.1.2016.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL.**
**-----------------------**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**P.S. TO JUDGE**
## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------**
## **W.P.(C).NO.35754 OF 2015 (T) ----------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of December, 2016**
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioner is a Doctorate Degree Holder in Bio-Chemistry with M.Phil qualification. Pursuant to a notification issued by the 4[th] respondent Board, the petitioner applied to the post of Assistant Professor in Bio-Chemistry in the Sree Ayyappa College, Eramallikkara. The petitioner was subjected to a scrutiny by the Selection Committee, and was thereafter offered appointment as Assistant Professor in Bio Chemistry in the said College. Ext.P1 is the appointment order. The 2[nd] respondent University, under whose administrative jurisdiction the College falls, had conducted a workload study in the Bio Chemistry Department of the College, and by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 22.8.2012, the number of teaching hours in the Bio Chemistry Department was assessed as 45, and therefore, sufficient to sanction three posts of Assistant Professor. It would appear that, when the appointment of the petitioner was sent to the University for the purpose of approval, based on the workload study that was conducted by the University, the respondent University
**W.P.(C).No.35754/2015**
**2**
found that the petitioner's appointment was to a post that could have been sanctioned based on the workload study conducted, and therefore, approved the appointment of the petitioner. When the matter was forwarded to the 3[rd] respondent, however, the said respondent referred the matter to the State Government, which in turn, sought for a report from the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education with regard to the correctness of the workload study done by the University. The Deputy Director, in Ext.P5 report dated 25.6.2013, found that the workload study conducted by the University was not correct, but since there were 25 teaching hours that was found required in the Bio Chemistry Department of the College in question, two posts could be sanctioned by the Government. Even going by Ext.P5 report of the Deputy Director, the petitioner's appointment to the second post could have been approved by the respondent University. The Government, however, by Ext.P6 order dated 28.3.2014, found that even Ext.P5 report of the Deputy Director could not be relied upon, and opined that since the workload in the Bio Chemistry Department of the College was only 13 hours, there was scope for sanctioning only one post of Assistant Professor in the said Department. Although by Ext.P7 communication, the respondent
**W.P.(C).No.35754/2015**
**3**
Board sought for a review of the decision in Ext.P6 communication of the Government, the said stand was reiterated by the Government in Ext.P8 order dated 20.10.2015. Based on Ext.P8 order of the Government, the respondent Board passed Ext.P9 order, finding that there was no sanctioned post of Assistant Professor in Bio Chemistry, to which the petitioner could have been appointed, and therefore, terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of the order. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P6, P8 and P9 orders, and prays for a declaration that, when workload is duly assessed and approved by the University, the 1[st] respondent cannot be heard to say that the post would not be sanctioned in terms of the workload approved by the University.
2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University support the averments in the writ petition, and maintains that the workload assessment done by the respondent University, assessing 45 hours, is correct, and does not call for any modification. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent, and the statement filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent, the stand taken is that,
**W.P.(C).No.35754/2015**
**4**
in the Sree Ayyappa College, Eramallikkara, in the Bio Chemistry Department, out of 23 hours, only 13 hours of workload is available for theory subjects, and the rest of the workload is for practical, for which only one post is permissible. It is stated that 16 teaching hours is necessary for granting an additional post. Reference is made to Ext.R1(a) Government order to substantiate the said contention. In the statement filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent, the stand taken is that the BSc Micro Biology course conducted in the Sree Ayyappa College, Eramallikkara, is a vocational course, and hence, only a workload of 25 hours can be accepted, and consequently, only one post of Assistant Professor sanctioned in the said Department of the College. The averments in the counter affidavit and the statement filed on behalf of the 1[st] and 3[rd] respondents respectively, are rebutted through reply affidavits filed by the petitioner, to the same. It is pointed out that, at any rate, inasmuch as the 2[nd] respondent University, which is the authority empowered by the Statutes to conduct a workload assessment in the College in question, has already conducted an assessment, and found that there are 45 teaching hours in the College in question, the workload assessment would justify the sanctioning of three posts of Assistant Professor. In other words,
**W.P.(C).No.35754/2015**
**5**
notwithstanding the stand of the 1[st] and 3[rd] respondents, it is the definite stand of the respondent University that the workload assessment done in the Bio Chemistry Department of the College in question, justifies the sanctioning of three posts of Assistant Professor in the said Department, for the academic year in question.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent University, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Travancore Devaswom Board as also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that, inasmuch as it is the definite stand of the respondent University that the workload assessment done justifies the sanctioning of three posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Bio Chemistry in the Sree Ayyappa College, Eramallikkara, it will not be open to the Government to disregard the workload assessment done by the respondent University, and come to a contrary conclusion with regard to the workload that exists in the Bio Chemistry Department of the
**W.P.(C).No.35754/2015**
**6**
respondent College. The decisions of this Court in **Cherian Mathew**
**– v. Principal S. B. College, Changanasherry [1998 (2) KLT 144]** and **Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College – [2007 (3) KLT 355]** are authorities that support the aforesaid finding. Resultantly, and following the aforementioned judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, this writ petition is allowed, by quashing Exts.P6, P8 and P9 orders, and directing the 2[nd] respondent University to forthwith approve the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Bio Chemistry with effect from the date of her appointment as such, and a further direction to the 3[rd] respondent to sanction the salary and other allowances flowing from such approval, to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE**
prp/14/12/16
