The university's approval of a teacher's appointment is binding, and government objections do not impede salary payments.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who is working as Lecturer Senior Scale in the Department of Mathematics in 4th respondent's college, is aggrieved by the denial of salary, in spite of the approval granted by the University as per Ext.P5. Reliance is placed on two Division Bench decisions of this court in Cherian Mathew v. Principal, S.B. College, Changanacherry ( 1998 (2) KLT 144 ) andShalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College (2007 (3) KLT 355) to contend that once the University has granted approval, the Government cannot refuse to pay the salary.

2. The short facts leading to the appointment and promotion of the petitioner are the following: The petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in the vacancy which arose consequent on the deputation of another Lecturer, as per the appointment order dated 27.8.1990. The said appointment was approved by the University as per their proceedings dated 23.1.1991 (Order No.UO 234/Ac.B. 111/2/90). She was reappointed by the management as per Ext.P1 order dated 2.12.1998. The said appointment also has been approved as per Ext.P2 which was wpc 26646/2006 2 concurred by the Government as per Ext.P3. She is having M.Phil degree and Ext.P4 is the degree certificate produced in support of the plea. The petitioner was qualified to get placement as Lecturer Senior Scale which was recommended by the 4th respondent. The same has been approved by the University as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.6.2005. As per Ext.P5, the Syndicate Sub-Committee on Affiliation resolved to approve provisionally the promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer Senior Scale with effect from 2.5.2003 and to fix her pay at Rs.10,000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000/- - 325 - 15200 with effect from 2.5.2003. Since respondents 1 to 3 refused to disburse the salary, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for appropriate directions in the matter.

3. The third and fifth respondents have filed counter affidavits in the matter. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is mainly contended that the broken period of service from 27.8.1990 to 26.3.1001 cannot help the petitioner and the same cannot be reckoned. The petitioner acquired M.Phil only in 1994 and has not so far acquired NET qualification. Exemption from NET is available only for persons who have acquired M.Phil degree by 31.12.1993. Since the petitioner was reappointed on 2.12.1998, she has to pass the NET. The approval granted by the University is in contravention of the UGC Regulations and therefore, wpc 26646/2006 3 the M.G. University was addressed as per letter dated 13.1.2006 to clarify as to whether the promotion approval was in tune with UGC/Government stipulations/rules regarding qualification. In reply, the University, as per their letter dated 14.2.2006 informed that the Syndicate Sub-Committee held on 25.8.2004 had resolved that those teachers who are appointed till 14.5.1992 and reappointed thereafter are exempted from NET and other academic qualifications. It is contended that the University is incompetent to take such a decision.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is averred that the promotions have been approved by the University and the objection raised by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education in his letter dated 13.1.2006 had been clarified. The University had clarified the position that “the UGC regulations of 1991 are not applicable in such cases where selection was done by duly constituted selection committee for making appointments to the teaching posts prior to the enforcement of these regulations. The Syndicate Sub Committee in its meeting held on 25.8.2004, has resolved that those teachers who are appointed till 14.5.1992 and reappointed thereafter are exempted from NET and other academic qualifications.”

5. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit wpc 26646/2006 4 of the third respondent, Exts.P6 to P12 have been produced. It is explained that the qualific