Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Muhammed Abdul Raheem V. P – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10037 of 2015, has filed this writ appeal invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 16.11.2021 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed with a direction that the salary for the period 01.09.2014 to 15.06.2015 to be paid to the appellant-petitioner if he had actually rendered service as Lecturer in English in Sullamussalam Arabic College, Areacode, Malappuram District, as pleaded in the writ petition, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment, and the salary for the subsequent period when the service of the petitioner was taken with effect from 01.06.2020 shall also to be paid.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was one filed by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 Government order dated 15.05.2013, Ext.P4 Government order dated 01.11.2013 and Ext.P5 Government letter dated 18.02.2014 to the extent to which those are sought to be invoked against the appellant; a declaration that Exts.P3, P4 and P5 cannot be invoked ag
The court ruled that an appointment against a leave vacancy requires adherence to prescribed procedures, and the appellant lacked the legal right to compel salary payment from the University.
The government is liable to disburse salary only for appointments made against posts sanctioned by it, emphasizing the necessity of workload assessment for faculty appointments.
Point of Law : Probation appointment - Appointment of the petitioner was not made on the said post of lecturer after following the requisite procedure under Statute 417 framed by the University.
The court reinforced that salaries must be paid to teachers based on regularized appointments, rejecting any arbitrary withholding by the State as per established constitutional rights, regardless of....
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the government is not obligated to pay the salary of an individual appointed in a non-sanctioned post from the government grant.
Appointments must comply with stipulated qualifications; hence, prior erroneously granted approvals may be reversed to ensure adherence to legal standards.
Orders denying interest on salary arrears must include reasons; lack of transparency violates principles of good administration.
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
