High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-02-28Writ petition dismissed.

State of Kerala & Others v. Dr. B.H. Selin Joy & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 20966/2010-U

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date: 2011-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the University’s workload fixation and statutory guidelines justify the appointment, and there is no ground to interfere with the University’s approval; the Government is obligated to disburse salary in line with the precedent set in Cherian Mathew and Shalini Rachel.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Kerala (Secretary to Government, Higher Education)
Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kollam

Respondents

Dr. B.H. Selin Joy
Manager, Christian College
University of Kerala (Registrar)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Government Pleader Smt. M.R. Sreelatha

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. P.N. Mohanan
• Adv. N. Sasidharan Unnithan
• Adv. P.J. Sabastin
• Adv. M.Rajagopalan Nair, S.C.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the University of Kerala’s approval of the appointment of Dr. B.H. Selin Joy as Lecturer in Physics at Christian College, Kattakkada. The petitioners (State of Kerala, Director of Collegiate Education, Deputy Director of Collegiate Education) contend that the workload fixed for the Physics department does not support another lecturer, arguing that the post does not align with the workload and staff pattern mandated by the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 and the Kerala University Ordinances, 1978, Chapter XIII. The University issued Ext.P2 notifying approval for the appointment; the manager’s counter and the college’s academic body base their position on workload calculations and sanctioned posts. The respondents rely on the workload as 152 hours (87 + 65) and the permissible number of teaching posts as 10 as of 1.11.2008; they point to prior ordering indicating 16 posts existed before delinking pre-degree, with the retirement vacancy on 1.4.2007 and the need to fill that post. The court cites Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B. College, Changanassery (1998 (2) KLT 144) and Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355) to the effect that once the University approves an appointment, salary must be paid. However, relying on University workload guidelines and statutory provisions, the court holds there is no illegality in the approval and dismisses the petition. Ext.P7 (earlier related judgment) is noted, reinforcing the salary-disbursement obligation upon University approval.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978Kerala University Ordinances, 1978, Chapter XIII (teaching hours fixed for workload calculation)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the workload prescribed for the Physics department does not support creation/appointment of an additional post. They rely on the University statutes and workload norms to argue that the approved post is not justified; they assert that salary should not be disbursed unless the appointment aligns with statutory workload and staff pattern as interpreted by Sindh Shalini Rachel and Cherian Mathew. They emphasize that Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 workload figures indicate insufficient justification for a fresh appointment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the workload fixed by the University (152 hours) allows 10 teaching posts for Physics; the department’s posts are governed by the University’s staff pattern, and approvals follow the workload. They argue that once the University approves a post, salary must be paid and reference prior judgments confirming the salary obligation upon approval; they maintain that the current backing workload and post-adalath review justify the appointment.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B. College, Changanassery	1998 (2) KLT 144	Positive	Court cites this decision to support the proposition that salary must be paid once the University approves an appointment, aligning with the workload-based sanction.
Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College	2007 (3) KLT 355	Positive	Court relies on this decision to affirm that university sanction based on workload/staff pattern obliges salary disbursement by the Government.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Kerala & Others v. Dr. B.H. Selin Joy & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** **MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932** **WP(C).No. 20966 of 2010(U)** **---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** **---------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. DR.B.H.SELIN JOY, LECTURER IN PHYSICS DEPARTMENT, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. MANAGER, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN, SRI.P.J.SABASTIN, R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C). NO.20966/2010-U:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT.** **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DTD. 09/05/2008.** **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.66/90/H. EDN. DTD. 13/03/1990.** **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.5/2001 DTD. 03/01/2001.** **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE POST ADALATH REVIEW DONE BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION.** **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF OBJECTION DTD. 11/11/2008.** **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5747/2010.** **EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/06/2010.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/07/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.18986/2007.** **EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/10/2007.** **EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER.** ## **EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SYNDICATE DTD. 09/05/2008 APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/11/08.** **EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13/09/2007 OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE R.1.** **EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE WORK LOAD STATEMENT OF THE COLLEGE OF THE YEAR 2006-07.** **EXT.R1.H: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01/04/09 OF THE UNIVERSITY.** **EXT.R1.I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21/06/2007 IN 2007 (3) KLT 355.** **EXT.R1.J: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.18342/2010.** **EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE RE-APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 05/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2/MANAGER.** **EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE RE-APPOINTMENT APPROVAL ORDER DTD. 09/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.3/UNIVERSITY.** **EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/09/2007 OF THE R3/SYNDICATE (UNIVERSITY).** **W.P.(C). NO.20966/2010-U:** **EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE WORK LOAD STATEMENT AS ON 01/11/2006 DTD. 31/03/2008 FROM THE R.2/MANAGER DETAILING WORK LOAD AS 155.** **EXT.R2.E: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ACF.V/1/46579/08 DTD. 01/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.3/UNIVERSITY DETAILING NUMBER OF TEACHERS PERMISSIBLE AS 10 (6 + 4) FOR PHYSICS.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20966 of 2010-U** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011.** ## **JUDGMENT** In this writ petition, the State and others are challenging the order granting approval of appointment of the first respondent in the Department of Physics in the third respondent College, as Lecturer in Physics. The main point raised is that the workload does not support the appointment. 2. Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The approval was granted by the University as per Ext.P2 order. This was intimated by the Principal to the Deputy Director of Education, the third petitioner herein. The objection raised by the third petitioner is that as per the review work load there are only 83 hours and hence 5 posts of teachers alone can be sanctioned in the department. 4. The contesting respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent Manager, it is stated that at the relevant time, 10 posts were there and a permanent vacancy arose in the department due to retirement, on 1.4.2007. The first respondent herein was a claim holder based on her previous approved wpc 20966/2010 2 service in the department of Physics. Accordingly, she was appointed. It is against the 10[th] one which is a retirement vacancy. Ext.R2(c) is the letter issued by the University to the Manager showing that the number of posts sanctioned for Physics is 16 prior to delinking of Pre-degree and the number of posts admissible, as per the present workload for Physics is 10. It is stated that the statement of workload based on the students strength as on 1.11.2006 for the year 2006-2007 is 155. The workload as per the postadalath review in December, 2002 is 148. As per the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 the permissible number of teachers is 10. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent also these facts have been pointed out. The first respondent is relying upon various provisions of the University Statutes. Reliance is placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B. College, Changanassery** (1998 (2) KLT 144) and **Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College** (2007 (3) KLT 355) to the effect that once the University has approved the appointment, salary will have to be paid. Reliance is also placed on Ext.R1(a) judgment of this Court also. 7. In the statement filed by the University, the following facts have been stated: wpc 20966/2010 3 “The guidelines laid down in the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 is adhered to while assessing the workload and fixing the staff strength of each department. The workload of the Physics Department of Christian College, Kattakkada, thus assessed by the University as per order dated 1.4.2009 is 87 + 65 = 152 hours and permissible number of teaching post is 10 as on 1.11.2008. As per Chapter XIII of the Kerala University Ordinances, 1978 the teaching hours fixed for calculation of workload is 15 hours and all additional post for hours exceeding 6. Hence the permissible number of teaching post is 10 for 152 hours.” It is reiterated that now the Department as a whole has only 10 teachers, which is permissible. It is averred that only academic bodies of the University are competent to make necessary changes to the syllabus and the hours needed for instruction. 8. Evidently, therefore, the workload fixed by the University as per the University Statutes will have to be adhered to. If that be so, the appointment of the petitioner and its approval cannot be said to be illegal. Ext.P7 is the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5747/2010 which was filed by the first respondent. In fact, in the judgment Ext.P7 already there is a direction to disburse the salary to the first respondent herein. The petitioners have filed this writ petition in the light of the observation therein that it will be wpc 20966/2010 4 open to the second respondent Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter with the University or to challenge the approval order appropriately. 9. The Division Bench in **Shalini's case** (2007 (3) KLT 355), held the view that it is for the Syndicate for the University to sanction a post/approval if it is in accordance with the staff pattern fixed by the University and the persons appointed are fully qualified for the post. It is further found that once the University grants approval for filling up the post sanctioned by it, on the basis of workload and staff pattern, the Government has the obligation to disburse the salary. 10. Evidently, therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained. The 10[th] post, according to the University, is available. The workload relied upon by the Government is Exts.P4 and P5. Evidently, it is not in terms of the University Statutes. For all these grounds, I find no ground to interfere with the orders passed and hence the writ petition is dismissed. ## **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** ## **kav/** wpc 20966/2010 5