Management's authority to appoint based on prior workload orders prevails over subsequent alterations, affirming protections for appointed teachers.

JUDGMENT

Among the two writ petitions above, WP(C) No.8051/2020 has been filed by the Cochin College – which is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University ('M.G.University’) and its Educational Agency; while WP(C) No.11483/2020 has been filed by two teachers appointed by the said College in its Department of English as Assistant Professors.

2. These two writ petitions deserve to be decided and disposed of together because they are both edificed on the same factual matrix.

3. The controversy in these cases has its origin in the fact that, in an Adalath conducted in the presence of a nominee of the Government - namely the jurisdictional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (DDCE) - the workload of the Cochin College was settled, a copy of which is available as Ext.P5 in the WP(C) No.11483/2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adalath workload order'). This workload was based on the norms available when it was settled in the year 2017, namely GO(MS)No.93/2018/HEDN dated 9.05.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original workload order’) and it conceded to be 191 hours. Based on this, the management of the Cochin College appears to have appointed 12 persons knowing well that only eight posts had been sanctioned by the Government. This created various disputations because Government refused to accept the ‘Adalath Workload’ saying that, subsequent thereto, another Government Order bearing GO(MS) No.155/2020/HEDN dated 01.04.2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'modified workload order') had been issued, through which, the criteria accepted in the ‘original workload order’ had been altered, deleting the provisions in the said order which granted weightage to P.G.Practicals and treated 1½ hours of P.G.theory as being one hour, for calculating the workload.

4. The Government thus adopted the stand that the workload in the College was reduced to 116 hours and therefore, that appointment of the petitioners in WP(C) NO.11483/2020 cannot be allowed.

5. Before I move forward, I must, however, record that, pending this lis, the 1st and 3rd petitioners in WP(C)

No.11483/2020 have been granted approval, but from the year 2020, on the ground that two more additional posts had been sanctioned by the Government with effect from 30.12.2020. One among them, namely the 1st petitioner, now chooses to withdraw from this writ petition, however, with liberty being reserved to her to challenge the date of regularization and she makes this plea through Sri.R.Sanjith – another learned counsel.

6. I have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned counsel for petitioners 2 to 4 in WP(C) NO.11483/2020; Smt.Mariyam Jacob – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.8051/2020; Sri.R.Sanjith – learned counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner in WP(C) No.11483/2020; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

7. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan began his submissions relying upon the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Amina v. State of Kerala ( 2004 (1) KLT 657 ), which has declared the law that private college managements are competent to appoint teachers and they do so in accordance with the workload prescribed, such appointments are liable to be approved by the University and cannot be rejected on the ground that Government has refused to sanction such posts. He pointed out that the declarations in the said judgment are in the context of the fact that the appointments of the petitioners therein were rejected by the University saying that the State had ordered a ban on creation of new posts, but that the learned Single Judge entered the firm opinion that it was wrong and that the appointments in question had to be approved. He added that this view in Amina (supra) has been followed in several judgments thereafter, including in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007(3) KLT 355] and State of Kerala and others v. Dr. Sina.A.R. and others [