The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of contractual obligations in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution and the obligations imposed by an administrative order.

1. This is an appeal by the State of Kerala and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education from the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court allowing O. P. No. 657 of 1975. The 1st respondent herein was the petitioner in the Original Petition. The 2nd respondent is the Registrar, University of Kerala. The first prayer in the Original Petition was "To pay forthwith to the petitioner all the arrears of salary and other emoluments due to him as an Additional Professor (I Grade) in the Post-Graduate Department of the College, at the recognised scale of pay for the post, as revised from time to time and with all due increments, accruing monthly from the 1st of September 1972, together with compensatory interest thereon from such dates calculated at a minimum rate of 18% per annum". The learned judge by the judgment under appeal has allowed the earlier part of this prayer but has declined the compensatory interest claimed in the prayer.

2. It will be useful to refer very briefly to the past history of this petition. There was an earlier Original Petition by the 1st respondent, O.P. No 1491 of 1973 which contained three prayers. The questions that arose for consider-action in that Original Petition were formulated in the judgment in these terms:

"(1) Was the post of an additional Professor a post recognised by the Ordinances thai were in force on the Ist of March, 1972 when the petitioner was appointed to that post?

(2) Does that appointment require any approval or recognition by the University?

(3) If the appointment does not require any approval or recognition by the University, can the communications Exts. P4 and P6 issued by the 1st respondent stand in so far as they state that the appointment cannot be approved.

(4) If the answers to all the three questions formulated above are in favour of the petitioner, is he entitled to the relief couched in language which is not easy to understand, in prayer No. 3 of the petition, but when understood, necessarily conveying a clear import?"

3. After the case was heard, judgment was dictated in court on the 19th of December, 1973. Before the judgment was finalised and signed, the petitioner in that Original Petition moved C. M. P. No. 15852 of 1973 for withdrawing the 3rd prayer in the petition. This petition was heard and allowed on the 31st of January, 1974. The order is reported in 1975 KLT. 348. It was also directed by the order that the "question arising from prayer No. 3 is thus left open". Consequent on the allowing of the petition, the discussion relating to prayer No. 3 in the judgment as originally dictated were deleted and after dealing with the first three questions the judgment stated in Para.12:

"The petition, C. M. P. No. 15852 of 1973, for withdrawing the 3rd prayer in the Original Petition was granted by us by order dated 31-1-1974. So we express no opinion on the question whether the petitioner is entitled to get his salary or not. This must be decided with reference to statutory provisions if any that are applicable or the terms of the agreements that have been reached. It will be open to both parties to urge their contentions in this regard and for the appropriate authorities to take the decision."

4. The present Original Petition the judgment from which is under appeal, has been filed for the reliefs which we have adverted to. Two contentions have mainly been raised by the appellants in opposition to the petition. One was based on facts and the other question of law whether in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution any directions could be issued by this Court for disbursement of the salary in the circumstances of the case. The learned judge by the judgment under appeal found against the appellant on both these aspects.

5. The first contention of the Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants was that the question whether there has really been an appointment of the 1st respondent as an Additional Professor, 1st Grade on the 1st March, 1972, as claime