The university must reassess appointment eligibility based on workload and available vacancies without mechanical adherence to prior decisions.

JUDGMENT

Both these cases have been filed with respect to the appointment of Smt.S.Sajini.

2. Smt.S.Sajini – who was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the services of St.Thomas College, Ranni – has approached this Court through WP(C)No.21888/2022; while WP(C)No.25126/2022 has been filed by the Manager of the said College.

3. The controversy involved in these cases are in a very limited compass.

4. As said above, Smt.S. Sajani claims that she was appointed as an Assistant Professor by the College following due procedure and through a valid selection process, leading to her appointment order dated 29.07.2009 being issued with effect from 30.07.2009 – a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P2(b) in WP(C)No.21888/2022. She alleges that, however, the University has approved her appointment, through Ext.P4(a), only with effect from 01.06.2010; and asserts that this was illegal because there were at least two vacancies available at the time when she was appointed and that she was engaged to the third among them. She points out that, however, through Ext.P4(a), the University took the stand that she can be accommodated only against the second post and that too, in the retirement vacancy of another teacher by name Sri.C.K.Thomas.

5. Smt.Sajani says that she, therefore, approached this Court and obtained Ext.P17 judgment, wherein, the Government was directed to consider her claim; but that they have now issued Ext.P18 in WP(C)No.21888/2022, rejecting it merely saying that since the post had not been sanctioned, she is not entitled to seek appointment from 2009. She thus prays that Ext.P18 be quashed.

6. As far as the Manager of the College – who is the petitioner in WP(C)No.25126/2022 is concerned, he impels analogous contentions and supports the appointment of Smt.Sajani with effect from 30.07.2009.

7. I have heard Sri.Babu Varghese – learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Abhay Ferdinand – learned counsel appearing for Smt.Sajani S; Sri.C.V.Alexander – learned counsel appearing for the College; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University and Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader.

8. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the University, began his submissions saying that no fault can be attributed against his client by the petitioner because the approval of Smt.Sajani was ordered as early as on 17.02.2011, which is evident from Ext.P4(a) produced along with WP(C)No.21888/2022. He submitted that, therefore, the Government was certainly within its powers to have issued Ext.P18 in the said Writ Petition, because the petitioner could have been only accommodated against the second vacancy, which was done correctly with effect from 01.06.2010 when it arose. He, therefore, prayed that both these Writ Petitions be dismissed.

9. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P18 in WP(C)No.21888/2022 has been issued by the Government in terms of the judgment of this Court. She submitted that the Government could have done nothing more than what has been stated in Ext.P18 because no incumbent is entitled to receive salary against posts which are sanctioned by it. She argued that only two posts had been sanctioned to the College at the relevant time and therefore, that the petitioner could have been accommodated only against the second among them, when it became available on 01.06.2010, consequent to the retirement of Sri.C.K.Thomas.

10. In reply, learned Senior Counsel – Sri.Babu Varghese, submitted that Exts.P12 and P14 Work Statements, prepared jointly by the Deputy Director of Education (DDE) and the University, would demonstrate ineluctably that there were three posts availa