The Court upheld the petitioner's appointment as valid, denying claims of it being against a non-sanctioned post.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Physical Education in the 1^st respondent college with effect from 27.02.2013, as evidenced by Ext.P3 appointment order. That order, it may straight away be noticed, is with reference to a “substantive vacancy” on account of the retirement of one Sri. Rajan George, who was working as Lecturer Selection Grade. Even after the petitioner’s appointment was approved by the University pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 27.08.2013, the petitioner had to approach this Court contending that the Government was not honouring the salary bills presented on his behalf. In the earlier round of litigation - W.P.(C) No. 15453 of 2014 - by Ext.P6 interim order dated 18.06.2014, this Court specifically found that the Deputy Director, to whom the salary bill is being forwarded for countersignature, can object to the same only in a situation where a teacher is not qualified or in a situation where the appointment is not against a sanctioned post.

Finding so, the respondents were directed to ensure that the salary/allowances due to the petitioner from the date of appointment is disbursed. Complaining that the afore order is not being complied with, the petitioner had also instituted Contempt of Court Case No.1223 of 2014, which also is disposed of by the judgment dated 19.01.2015, imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent therein. The afore writ petition is also subsequently disposed of pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment dated 02.02.2015, noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the University that there is “sufficient workload,” and ordering that arrears, if any, due to the petitioner herein requires to be satisfied within two months. The petitioner has filed a captioned writ petition pointing out that even after all the above, the Government has issued Ext.P10, taking the view that the appointment of the petitioner was against a “non- sanctioned post”. The communication Ext.P10(a) seeking to cancel the decision taken by the Selection Committee, which led to the appointment of the petitioner as above, is also challenged.

2. I have heard Sri. C.V. Alexander, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, Smt. Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader and Sri. Abraham George Jacob, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent College.

3. The short issue arising for consideration is as to whether the finding in Ext.P10, to the effect that the petitioner was appointed against a “non-sanctioned post”, can be sustained or not.

4. As already noticed, when the petitioner had approached this Court complaining about the non-disbursement of the salary, this Court has found that the salary could be objected to only in a situation where the appointment was against a “non-sanctioned post”. Here, the afore contention is being taken with reference to Ext.R3(d), as per which the petitioner is appointed to a “non-sanctioned post”. At the same time, this Court notices that ultimately the University, pursuant to Ext.P9 dated 18.10.2012, has categorically found that with respect to the academic year 2011-12 in the Physical Education Department of 1^st respondent College, there were more than one thousand students, on the basis of which there could be two teachers in the College. The order of the University - [Ext.P9(a)], with reference to the academic year 2013-14, is also to the same effect. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents with reference to Ext.R3(a) wherein with reference to less than thousand students only one teacher can be had, cannot be applied. As already noticed, when the University contends and states that for the academic year 2011-12 there were more than one