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.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

W.A.No.1510 of 2023 is filed by respondents 2, 3, and 4 in W.P.(C)No.13475 of 2020 and W.A.No.1547 of 2023 is filed by respondents 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 in W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020, under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions.

W.A.No.1547 of 2023

2. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.920 of 2020, from which the above writ appeal arose, the 1^st respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at St.Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, in one of the retirement vacancies notified as per Ext.P1 notification dated 10.10.2012, with effect from 20.12.2013, under the community quota, by Ext.P3 appointment order. Immediately after the appointment of the 1^st respondent, the Principal of the College submitted the proposal to the Mahatma Gandhi University (‘M.G. University’, in short) for granting approval to the appointment. In the Department of Physics, there have been 155 hours of workload and 10 sanctioned posts as per Ext.P7 and P7 (a) workload statements dated 01.11.2011 and 01.11.2012, respectively. There had been 10 teachers in the department till the retirement of 3 teachers, the vacancy to which the 1^st respondent and two other teachers were appointed in pursuance of Ext.P1 notification. By Ext.P9 letter dated 16.09.2014, M.G. University refused to grant approval to the appointment of the 1^st respondent, stating the reason that the workload is not supportive for the 10^th faculty. On receiving Ext.P9 letter, the Principal of the College submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 18.12.2014 to the Vice Chancellor of the University seeking intervention in the matter. It was pointed out in Ext.P10 that by Ext.P11 letter dated 16.06.2013, while nominating the Government nominee to the Statutory Selection Committee, the Government accorded sanction for filling up three vacancies in the Department of Physics.

2.1. The 1^st respondent further states that even as per the UGC norms, for 155 hours of workload calculated at 16 hours per teacher, there will be 128 hours for 8 teachers and 12 hours for the Head of the department, leaving a balance of 15 hours for the 10^th teacher. As per M.G. University Ordinances, for every additional 6 hours and above, one post is to be sanctioned. Though the 1^st respondent was working on the basis of the appointment order issued with effect from 20.12.2013, he has not been paid salary for want of approval by the University. Therefore, the 1^st respondent, along with the Manager of the College, filed W.P.(C)No.18175 of 2015 before this Court, to quash Ext.P9 order to the extent it declares that there was no sufficient workload for the 10^th faculty and to approve his appointment and for other consequential reliefs. By Ext.P14 judgment dated 24.10.2016, this Court disposed of that writ petition directing the University to provisionally approve the appointment of the 1^st respondent. Certain other consequential directions were also issued in that judgment.

2.2. Pursuant to Ext.P14 judgment, the Principal of the College sent Ext.P15 letter dated 28.10.2016 to the M.G. University, requesting to approve the post of the 1^st respondent as Assistant Professor in Physics and also to speed up the procedure of workload calculation and fixation of staff in the Department of Physics. Since the direction in Ext.P14 judgment was not complied with, the 1^st respondent filed Con.Case (Cl) No.263 of 2017. By Ext.P15 (a) judgment dated 02.08.2017, this Court closed the contempt case, recording the submissio