Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Senior Government Pleader, Shri A.J. Varghese.
For the Respondents: Sri. S. Muhammed Haneeff, Sri. C.V. Alexander, Shri. Thomas Abraham, Sc, University Of Kerala, Smt. Nisha George, Sri. George Poonthottam (Sr.), Sri. A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Sri. Babu Varghese (Sr.).

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The law distinguishes between the creation of posts and the approval of appointments. Post creation authority rests with the Government, while approval of appointments is the responsibility of the University, based on workload assessments. Posts created before the 2005 amendment remain valid unless explicitly abolished, and no further government sanction is required for appointments to these posts unless they exceed the existing sanctioned strength (!) (!) .

2. The 2005 amendment to the relevant laws made the creation of new posts in aided colleges subject to prior sanction from the Government. However, posts that existed prior to the amendment, and were created with approval of the University, do not require subsequent government sanction for appointment approval, provided they are still legally valid and have not been expressly abolished (!) (!) .

3. The approval process for appointments involves verification of compliance with the staff pattern and workload assessment carried out by the University. The approval authority remains with the University, but the creation of new posts beyond the existing sanctioned posts after 2005 is exclusively within the domain of the Government (!) (!) .

4. The law emphasizes that workload assessments are necessary for the approval of appointments, and such assessments should be conducted strictly according to prescribed regulations. These assessments do not automatically create or abolish posts; they are meant to determine the necessity and justification for appointments within the existing staff strength (!) (!) .

5. In cases where appointments are made to posts that are found surplus or non-existent following workload assessments, the appointment can still be valid if the post was not expressly abolished by the competent authority before the appointment. The absence of an explicit abolition means the post continues to exist, making appointments to such posts legal (!) (!) .

6. The court reaffirmed that appointments made in accordance with the existing posts and workload assessments, without requiring new government sanction, are valid. The approval of appointments in posts that are within the existing sanctioned strength and not expressly abolished remains within the jurisdiction of the University (!) .

7. The decision clarified that the introduction of new courses or programs does not automatically require the creation of new posts unless the workload assessment indicates the need for additional staffing. The process of creating or abolishing posts involves conscious decisions by the competent authorities, and workload assessments alone do not alter the status of existing posts (!) (!) .

8. The court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the validity of the appointments in question, emphasizing that appointments made to posts that are still legally in existence and not expressly abolished are lawful, even if the posts were considered surplus in earlier assessments, provided there was no formal abolition (!) (!) .

These points summarize the legal principles and findings relevant to the creation and approval of posts and appointments in aided colleges, especially concerning the impact of the 2005 amendments and workload assessments.