K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question raised in all these cases is with regard to the impact of the University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 by which sub-section (1) was inserted to Section 57 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 and to other similar University Acts and its impact on the Statutes, Ordinances and on the Direct Payment agreement entered into between aided colleges and the State Government. For the disposal of these cases we shall refer to the provisions of the Kerala University Act, Statutes and Ordinances.

2. A learned single judge in W.P.C.No.12109 of 2006 took the view that filling up of the vacancies to the post of teachers in private aided colleges is governed by the provisions of the University Act and Statutes and the University Laws (Amendment) Act does not provide that for filling up of vacancies in existing sanctioned posts Government sanction is necessary, but sanction is required only for filling up the newly sanctioned posts. State maintained the stand that even for filling up the vacancies in the existing sanctioned posts and also for the newly sanctioned posts, permission of the Government or the Officers authorized by the Government is necessary. Similar issue came up for consideration in another writ petition, W.P.C.No.9563 of 2006 and another learned judge of this court doubted the correctness of the decision in W.P.C.No.12109 of 2006 and referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question raised. Later few other cases have also been referred and we are now called upon to examine the impact of Section 57(1) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 as amended by Act 2 of 2005 on the various other provisions of the Kerala University Act, Statutes and Ordinances framed thereunder and other related provision in various other University laws.

3. Petitioners in most of the cases were selected for various teaching posts by duly constituted Selection Committee which included Government representatives. Their appointments were also duly approved by the Syndicate of the respective Universities and are discharging their duties. But they are not getting their salary which according to the petitioners, the Government is bound to pay on the basis of Direct Payment Scheme. Salary bills were forwarded to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education by the Managements for counter signature and for encashment of the salary. Deputy Director of Collegiate Education is not disbursing the salary on the ground that prior sanction of the Government was not obtained before appointing them in those vacancies. Petitioners have therefore approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Director or Collegiate Education to countersign and pass the salary/arrears bills and also for other consequential reliefs. Petitioners in some other writ petitions were appointed against retirement vacancies, leave vacancies etc. Appointments were effected in accordance with the provisions of the University Act, Statutes and Ordinance by duly constituted Selection Committee consisting of representative of the State Government. Appointments were also approved by the Syndicate of the respective Universities, but salary is not being disturbed to them mainly on the ground that the Government had not sanctioned the posts and therefore not duty bound to pay salary in the light of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Act.

4. The question as to whether Government is entitled to impose a condition that prior approval from the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education is a pre-requisite for the appointment of a teacher by the Management came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B. College, Changanacherry (1998 (2) KLT 144). State Government as well as the Deputy Director took up the stand that since Government is paying salary to teachers, even though University has approved their appointments, Government is entitled to impose