IMPORTANT POINT
Persons appointed on sanctioned posts and approved by competent authority cannot be denied salary etc. on ground of paucity of funds.

Headnote:Education law – Higher Education – Service law – Salary – State Government approving and permitting new courses – Courses were purely aided courses – Direct payment scheme applies – Due to increased work-load additional persons, viz. respondents 1 to 7, were employed and approved by University – Appointments against sanctioned posts – Cannot be denied salary and allowances for paucity of funds. (Para 17, 18)
       Facts of the case:
       The State of Kerala accorded sanction on 09.11.1998 to the private educational institutions and managements for starting few new courses subject to the condition that there should be no additional financial commitment on the part of the State on that account.
       The Government accorded sanction for starting the new courses as mentioned in the appendix to the Government order subject to the condition that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose of any account.
       Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who were appointed by the 8th respondent-management to the various new courses sanctioned by the Government, the management forwarded the proposal for approval of their appointment to the university; but the same was rejected on 31.05.2002
       In the year 2003, staff fixation order was issued to the Secretary of 8th respondent - management on 10.12.2003 for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03.
       Being aggrieved by the non-approval of the appointment of respondent nos. 1 to 8, respondents preferred Writ Petition (c) No. 482 of 2005. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Government is liable to pay the salary and other allowances to the teachers appointed to the new courses by the managements.
       State of Kerala preferred an appeal bearing. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State of Kerala and dismissed the other writ petitions.
       The Division Bench allowed the review petitions holding that the conclusion of the Division Bench in W.A No. 2529 of 2005 (dated 18.08.2007) that Direct Payment Agreement do not apply to courses subsequently commenced, is directly contrary to Clause 35 of the Agreement. While allowing the review petitions, the Court directed the State to pay salary and allowances to the teachers who were appointed by the private managements in the newly commenced courses.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no error in impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 29423-29424 of 2010.

2. State of Kerala has filed these appeals assailing the order passed by the High Court allowing various review petitions filed by the respondents and declaring that the conditions relied on by the Government are violative of the provisions contained in Direct Payment Agreement and the University Statutes and directing the State to pay salary and allowances to the teachers who were appointed by the Private Managements in the newly commenced courses.

3. The issue arising in these appeals being similar, the cases were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the appeals filed by State of Kerala and others in C.A Nos. 8459-8461 of 2010 challenging the order dated 07.10.2009 in R.P Nos. 101 & 180 of 2008 and W.A No. 2529 of 2005 are taken as lead case.

4. Briefly stated the background facts are as under:-

The State of Kerala accorded sanction on 09.11.1998 to the private educational institutions and managements for starting few new courses subject to the condition that there should be no additional financial commitment on the part of the State on that account. The 8th respondent-management applied to the Mahatama Gandhi University and the university vide an order dated 13.11.1998 granted permission to start new degree/graduate and post-graduate courses w.e.f. the academic session 1998-99 without any additional financial commitment to the University/Government. The managements for various aided colleges including the 8th respondent - management applied for affiliation of new courses. The Government issued an order dated 06.12.1999 according sanction for starting the new courses as mentioned in the appendix to the Government order subject to the condition that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose of any account. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who were appointed by the 8th respondent-management to the various new courses sanctioned by the Government, the management forwarded the proposal for approval of their appointment to the university; but the same was rejected on 31.05.2002 In the year 2003, staff fixation order was issued to the Secretary of 8th respondent - management on 10.12.2003 for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03.

5. Being aggrieved by the non-approval of the appointment of respondent nos. 1 to 8, respondents preferred Writ Petition (c) No. 482 of 2005 seeking a writ of mandamus and also to quash the staff fixation orders. Vide a judgment dated 12.08.2005, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Government is liable to pay the salary and other allowances to the teachers appointed to the new courses by the managements.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, State of Kerala preferred an appeal bearing W.A NO. 2529 of 2005. In the meantime, many writ petitions were filed on similar grounds. By the common judgment dated 18.08.2007, Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State of Kerala and dismissed the other writ petitions. Division Bench held that the State can always impose conditions while according sanction and the condition so imposed, that the new appointments are without any additional financial commitment to the State, is perfectly legal and valid and the private college managements are bound by it.

7. Aggrieved by the same, various review petitions were preferred by the respondents and also other private college managements contending that the said judgment dated 18.08.2007 was rendered without adverting to the provisions of the University Act, the Statutes, the Direct Payment Agreement and various judgments of the Apex Court as also that of the High Court. Vide a common order dated 7.8.2009, the Division Bench allowed the review petitions holding that the conclusion of the Division Bench in W.A No. 2529 of 2005 (dated 18.08.2007) that Direct Payment Agreement do not apply to courses subsequently commenced, is directly contrary to Clause 35 of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 149

IMPORTANT POINTPersons appointed on sanctioned posts and approved by competent authority cannot be denied salary etc. on ground of paucity of funds.

IMPORTANT POINT
Persons appointed on sanctioned posts and approved by competent authority cannot be denied salary etc. on ground of paucity of funds.