Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Dr.Poornima.C.C., D/o.P.P. Ramachandran – Respondent
WA No. 267 of 2022
Decided on : 23-08-2022
Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 - Section 59(1) – Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 - Statute 1(1)(b) of Chapter 45 - Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 - Appeal - Direct Payment Scheme - Appointment of teachers in private Colleges - Approval of appointment - Appointments to posts eligible to receive salary from Government shall be made only against posts sanctioned by Government or by such officers as may be authorized by Government - Whether appointment of petitioners is in accordance with provisions of Act and also whether such appointments are liable to be approved by University so as to enable appointees to receive salary from Government under Direct Payment Scheme - Whether Government is entitled to impose a condition that prior approval of Directorate of Collegiate Education is a pre-requisite for appointment of teachers in Private Colleges came up for consideration before this Court - Holding that if obligation of State to pay salary arises under a statute or an agreement, State is not liable to pay salary as no legal right accrues in favour of those who had been appointed violating provisions of statute and terms of agreement. (Para 19).
Findings of the Court :
Petitioners are not persons appointed by Government in any Government College or by University concerned in any of institutions run by it. They are persons appointed by private bodies and they are eligible to claim salary from Government only in terms of Direct Payment Scheme. As such, there is absolutely no merit in contention raised based on provisions contained in said Regulations.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
Does sanctioning of teaching posts in private colleges coming under the Direct Payment Scheme of the State Government in terms of Section 59(1) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (the Act) consequent on sanctioning of new courses relate back to the date of sanctioning of the courses, is the question which we are called upon to answer in this appeal.
2. The appeal arises from W.P.(C) No.8704 of 2021. The State and its officials in the Directorate of Collegiate Education who were respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition are the appellants. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the writ petition.
3. The facts, sans unnecessary details, are the following:
Later, the Director of Collegiate Education has also recommended to the Government at the instance of the College, to sanction to the College two additional posts of Assistant Professor, one in Hindi and the other in Malayalam.
(ii) Since the Government did not act upon the recommendation made by the Directorate of Collegiate Education for deputing its nominee so as to enable the College to conduct selection, the College filed a writ petition before this Court for appropriate directions, and this Court, in terms of Ext.P20 judgment, directed the Government to do the needful to depute its nominee for the said purpose. Later, as directed by this court, a nominee of the Government was deputed for conducting the selection and the selection was accordingly conducted. The petitioners were appointed pursuant to the said selection on 22.01.2018 and they have joined duty on 24.01.2018.
(iii) Later, proposals were made by the Manager of the College before the Mahatma Gandhi University (the University) to which the College is affiliated, for approval of the appointments of the petitioners. While the said proposals were pending, on 30.12.2020, the Government created new teaching posts of Assistant Professor in various aided Arts and Science Colleges in the State including two posts in the College, one in Hindi and the other in Malayalam. Ext.P22 is the order issued by the Government in this regard. Since the posts required to accommodate the petitioners were sanctioned only with effect from 30.12.2020, the University took the stand that the proposals made by the Manager for approval of the appointments of the petitioners with effect from their date of joining cannot be considered. Ext.P24 is the communication issued by the University in this regard. The writ petition was filed in the above background challenging Ext.P24 communication and also for a direction to the University to approve the appointments of the petitioners with effect from the date of joining duty. The petitioners also sought a declaration in the writ petition that sanctioning of the posts by the Government is effective from the date of sanctioning of additional courses resulting in the increased workload.
(iv) The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that insofar as there was sufficient workload in the College for sanctioning additional posts when th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
